Official Luthiers Forum!

I posted this after seeing it early this morning and got back home a after a long day to see that, as Hesh predicted, this set off a storm of comments. I, like many here, have read of people claiming to have discovered Stradivari's 'secret'. Over time, invariably the discoveries fade away only to be replaced by new one's that fade away as well. But through it all, I still find myself intrigued.

Out of curiosity I carefully read the original study. I read a fair number of scientific studies in the course of my agriculture work and after many moons of doing so, I've become at least to some degree tuned in to seeing clues as to the general objectivity, the tools and methods and the parameters of the conclusions of studies. I don't know much about the science of this particular one but in general terms it looks to me to be well conducted, conservative in scope and conclusions that have a ring of truth.

When this report hit the wires - headline editors rightly figured that the word "Stradivarius" would would catch peoples attention and by implying that 'the' secret has been revealed they undoubted thought it would stir even more interest - after all it's what caught my eye. And along with most of you - my skepticism as well. Even though I've never been within a 1000 miles of a Strad as far as I know, I still like to pretend I know a little about 'em.

The study was not funded or sponsored, which undoubtedly had something to do with the small number of instruments measured - of the five Cremonese violins three were Gesù' violins (I don't imagine there would have been very many hits if the headlines had read 'Gesù's secrets revealed') and there were 8 contemporary
violins. The objective of the study could be roughly boiled down to this - to utilize high tech measuring tools in new ways to better understand the sound value of the older instruments and to see if the information might be of value to contemporary makers.

In fairness, the study itself is very interesting and worth taking a look at. While reading it I thought that it would be interesting to see Alan Carruth's comments. Rather than reporting that they had discovered 'the' secret, to the contrary, the authors are very up front about acknowledging that they were measuring a limited set of proportions- namely what they call the differential density (which is roughly the variation in density within each growth ring attributed to season growth) and the median density.

When these measurements were plotted out, what they found was that, although all instruments measured, old and new, had similar median densities but the older instruments tended to have more consistent and uniform differential densities. They clearly state that this is nothing more than a characteristic clustering and that there are many other factors that could lend themselves to the tone of the classic violins.

I think they would completely agree with what Colin has posted above that the old makers were extraordinarily
talented makers who above all were masters of their art.

I was a little curious about who's violins those contemporary ones might have been, so I googled the first maker's name -Terry M. Borman, from Arkansas. Well, that opened up a whole new can of worms. I was hoping that they hadn't compared a Cremonese violins with some Ozark Fiddles whittled out of a tree stumps. They didn't. Terry M. Borman also one of the researchers, is a builder of exquisite artistry and craftsmanship
and deserves a look. http://www.bormanviolins.com

Also look at his article from the magazine 'The Strad' Sept 2005 - "Passing Through the Woods"
where he uses CT scanning to measure 45 Gesù' violins with 4500 measurements.
http://www.bormanviolins.com/Articles/Strad%20Article.pdf

And one more closer to the ground that I ended up reading that might interest some -
"Photography for Instrument Makers"
http://www.bormanviolins.com/Articles/VSAP%20Borman%20145-62.pdf

Buenos noches,

john

Thanks for your post, John. It's so much fun making fun of these articles that we sometimes forget to take serious research seriously.

The question raised for me is how typical the low differential densities between early and late wood are for spruce that was cut 300 years ago, and whether it is rare for spruce cut recently? In other words, did they discover something special about the wood selected by the Cremonese masters (and if so, one wants to know how did they select for it?), or something that happens to spruce over time?

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

Another part of this study that doesn't hold water is the claim made up front that nothing compares (measures up to) the quality of sound/tone of a Strad. There have been several blind listening tests done over the years between Strads and violins made by present day masters. The highest scoring instruments have often been those built by modern luthiers, so this study has made some false assumptions right from the get go.

To believe that only 3 or 4 luthiers ever existed (or will ever exist) who are the only luthiers ever make incredible sounding violins just holds no logic. Legends, myths, folklore, and "secret formulas" are much more news worthy than a luthier toiling away at his craft for years. As we all know, the "secret" is simply experience.

In just a few years it will all be over anyway. There can't be many Strads left in the world that are playable. We're just going to have to get used to listening to all the "inferior" instruments being crafted by today's masters.
Craig S.

I've handled (and my wife has played) half a dozen Stradivari violins from the collections of the RCM and RAM, they have a number of these instruments that are left to them and which in turn are loaned to suitable players, all truly great instruments. One reason that Stradivari violins sound so good is that they are usually played by top players only. But yes in blind tests, violins by say David Hume are often picked out as being the best violin. They are the Stradivari equivalent of today, just as a Klepper or a George Lowden will be considered the steel string eqiuvalent of a Torres in a hundred years time.

I've also restored quite a number of lutes and early guitars that go back to as far as the 1580s, and without doubt the soundboards are all of the highest quality spruce, but then they would be, the instruments that survive 300 or so years are normally only the very best ones of their time and that have been cared for over the centuries as being of some worth, and these better instruments would have been made with the best available material. Looked after these instruments and the extant Strads will still be playing in another three hundred years.

Stradivarius wasn't the only maker of great instruments, but he was dang good.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

I'll need to re-read this at a more suitable hour, but a quick glance doesn't seem to find a chart with the actual densities of the woods. I would love to know what density has the spruce in a Strad or Guarneri....
The differentials are interesting but honestly don't help me asses my own wood.

_________________
Build log

considering the violins have had 300 years of "curing", that may have much to do with the increased density ... on the lighter side , the secret is in the sauce ..... jody

I think you make the killer point here Colin, lesser instruments havent on the whole survived. From my POV there is a lot of marketing hype that goes on, ie so and so on his/her Strad playing the Beethoven tonight!. Be the first on your street to buy the album etc, etc. The leader of the Aust Chamber orchestra plays a recently acquired Guaneri http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/5941.html so now they are busy recording their repertoire for precisely the reasons above.

Sebastiaan

I just figured it out! ol stradivaious used nails to nail the neck on ! that must be the secret of his sound ! Jody

I would say lutherie is in many ways like being a chef. You need two components to make truly exceptional food, technique and great ingredients. Great technique with lousy ingredients will only take you so far much like great ingredients with lousy technique.

I do feel that there is something to be said about the quality of the wood available to us today vs. the quality of wood available to the great luthiers and craftsmen of the past, but I don't believe that's where it ends. While they may have had better quality wood to work with, we've in turn brought our technique and knowledge of the craft to new levels, thus extracting even more from whatever we have today than they possibly could have and in many ways, bringing us on par with them in terms of our ability to produce fine instruments.

I don't subscribe to the belief that Strads are the ultimate violins since that's a very subjective thing. I do, however, believe that studying the great instruments of the past is important because it may unlock new dimensions of understanding for us that we can apply to improving our own instruments today.

All in all, though... interesting article.

Funny you mention this Jody,
Stradivari did indeed use a nail or two in the heel block of his guitars to hold the neck on!

I guess someone took a couple x-rays of his axes and sho nuff.....nails. Wonder if they were 16 penny.

_________________
"After forty-nine years of violin building, I have decided that the search for a varnish is similar to the fox hunt. The fun is in the hunt."
Jack Batts Maker and Repairer of Fine Violins

The researcher was on the radio here, and was fairly level headed about the whole thing. Basically, all he feels he's discovered is that density throughout the tops was surprisingly uniform in older violins (ie, latewood and earlywood about equal), and figured it might one of the many things that influence the tone of a great old violin, all else being equal. Skill of the maker is certainly part of it, but as has been said, there are great modern makers as well.

Additionally, he (rightfully) noted that it's all well and good to say the density's equal throughout, but it doesn't tell you whether this is because the wood was selected for this, whether it was treated to achieve this, whether it's dumb luck, or whether that's just what 300 year-old wood is like.

As usual, popular science reporting fails at presenting things intelligently. Given how the media often writes up science news, it doesn't surprise me at all that some people don't believe in evolution...

Stradivarius was considered a top builder in his day. His order book has commissions from Kings, Duke, and Princes. He did not, however, have the rep that he has now. A couple of thinks happened to make Strads the legends they are today.

One, The style of music played changed. If all we ever had was chamber music, Strads would not be as prized. They are really too much instrument for small drawing room venues. As orchestras became larger, soloists needed an instrument that could kick it out.

Two, Paganini. He was a superstar in his time. He played to sold out crowds all throughout Europe. He played a Strad. Soon, any soloist that wished to taken seriously had to have a Strad. Now, Paganini knew what he was doing and Strads are pretty darn good instruments so the high quality of the instrument and the celebrity endorsement, sealed the fate of the Stradivarius.

Imagine that Clapton only played instruments by a, now dead, builder. I suspect that they would command pretty high prices even if there were a few hundred of them out there. Better yet. Imagine a Bill Monroe only played a mandolin by a now dead builder (Lloyd Loar) and that these mandolins were pretty good. I suspect that they would command a pretty high price. (They do)

Uh, the violin that Paganini called his "cannon" was a Guarneri del Gesu (Joey to his friends). A little later than Strad.

Vuillaume and then the Hill brothers deified Strad, if I'm reading my history right. Vuillaume created the standard conversion of Cremonese violins for modern playing by replacing the original necks (keeping and grafting the scroll and pegbox). He was a prominent builder and a great publicist for the Cremonese violins that he (not coincidentally) had bought up by the dozens, done his mods on, and resold. The Hills (London dealers) wrote the definitive histories of the Cremonese makers, cementing their mythical status. They also (not coincidentally) bought and sold dozens of them.

Which is not to say they aren't great fiddles. It also helped that Strad had a long career and built a lot of them.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

i dont care what you say ... i got my eyes on a big ol 10" spike down at lowes! jody

I always chuckle when a new article or study or revelation comes down the pike about what it
could have possibly been that made those Stradivari violins so incredible. I really believe it was
his reputation and the the endorsements that he and his violins had and still do receive from
well known players and composers.

I remember reading about Dr. Joseph Nadvarry's discovery and replication of the Strad finish
a decade ago and then was able to attend a lecture on it by him and even spent a few hours
speaking with him afterward. I walked away completely convinced that he had missed the bus
on what made them what they were and are. The instruments that were used to attempt to prove
his theory and findings were od student quality in build and tone and the playing on them was
of the same caliber so nothing was proven even remotely. It was a waste of time just as I believe
his many years of work and all of those thousands and thousands of grant and donation dollars
were.

I would honestly venture to say that many of the violin builders of that era would have been
producing instruments equal to or better than Stradivari, but never received the acclaim that he
did.

There are no "original" Stradivari pieces in existence so we'll never know what they actually
sounded like in their earlier lives. The simple fact that all have had major work and restoration
done....from long ago...that we have to wonder why it was necessary and why the craftsmen
who have rebuilt and reconstructed them haven't been sought out or revered as much since they
are actually responsible for their current tone.

Also, John Lewis brings up an interesting and far too often overlooked point. I know a violin
bow maker in California who has won every award offered for their quality for years and years.
The cost of his low end bow? A mere $50,000.00....and they go up from there. He has sold bows
to the very best of the best when it comes to well known violinists and cellists all over the world.

He told me once that he will have a player cme to him who just bought a violin for $35,000.00
to $40,000.00 and will buy and bow from him for $50,000.00. I think that peaks a bit about the
contribution of the bow to the tone that we hear as the player combine it with his technique and
whatever instrument he is laying it to.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

I stand corrected. I went back to the source for my original post and now realize that I misunderstood what was said. Paganini used a del Gesu although he did own several Strads. It was the del Gesu that he is known for. The reason I was confused was the contention that Paganini's stardom and the style of music he played made Strads and Guarneris the standard of excellence. There are a lot more Strads out there than Guarneris and the fit and finish of Strads is much better than Guarneris. If you wanted to play like Paganini, you needed either a Strad or a Guarneri. Vuillaume and then the Hill brothers continued the tradition. Vuillaume was the luthier of his day and maintained many of the Strads and owned several.

The documentation on the Messiah Strad is pretty good and most experts believe that it is genuine. It is in almost "out of the box" condition and has been rarely played through most of its existence. Much can be learned about Stradivarius from this instrument although I suspect that there might be some resistance to taking it apart.

A couple of reasons. Standard concert pitch was codified at A440, which was at the high end of what was being used in Europe until then. That put more string tension on the instrument than it was originally built for. At about the same time, a new breed of virtuoso soloists was emerging, and they needed more room between the strings and the body for fancy and vigorous bow work, which led to setting the neck angle back and installing a higher bridge. For whatever reason, these things led to wholesale neck (and bridge) replacement.

So, no, we don't hear what old violins sounded like when they were built. I'm speculating, but I suspect that Stradivari would find music played on his instruments today to be too harsh and tight sounding.

_________________
Carlton Macksam
Muskegon, Michigan

Eric's ES335 went for over $ 800,000 when he sold it at auction to benefit his Crossroads Rehab Center.

About Strad- he and his sons produced a prodigious amount of instruments over his career. As every luthier knows, some just turn out better than others. Make several thousand and you will by providence produce a few score of outstanding instruments. People valued and protected the great ones which are extant today. Any turkeys ended up as kindling centuries ago. Basic Darwinism..............

_________________
It's not the miles ahead, it's the stone in your shoe


In Markham,Virginia