Violin Forum/Message Board

[ctviolin]

[John Cadd]

Come on CT you gave a very strange answer about one paragraph in Sacconi`s book.That`s what I was interested in discussing. I know perfectly well he did not make any Strads.That happened many years before him. That was not in that paragraph. I asked a question about that paragraph.I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him or his methods.It can be a clue to lots of different things. But if he said he altered several Strads then it does not need much more proof than that . He was there and he did what that paragraph says. Who are we to argue about that ? I don`t believe or disbelieve anything about it .It does contrast strongly with the modern attitudes of leave everything as it is . That may be wrong too .You sound as if you have heard some theories that you really believe , which are different to Sacconi `s . Would those theories disagree with Stradivari `s as well ?

[John Cadd]

Assuming on good authority (ie Michael Darnton who has seen many Strads closeup first hand ) that Strads are thin already we can maybe ask if they were as thin originally. Sacconi says the acoustic centre was "shifted"by "others" before he got to them . That means "they" either removed or added wood. I doubt if they added any wood. I could be wrong .So they probably removed it. Can we see any traces of added wood put there by Sacconi ? If not he must have removed some more wood.Is that how they came to be so thin. So not a question of believing anything. If there is added wood to see the situation is less of a worry .

[kjb]

he would have added wood such as holes ,patches, and the like that would be needed to keep the violin in working condition, I don't think he would have monkeyed around with anything original just out of curiosity.

I think he had more than a few strads in his hands, as I understand it he worshiped strad.

[John Cadd]

There is a clear statement in that paragraph that he did more than merely maintain the Strads in working order.He tells us about previous makers or restorers that he maybe imagined. He does mention them but gives no names. People who he thought or imagined , had done certain alterations to the Strads which in his opinion had been a grave error. These alterations were in conflict with a concept in his head which had to be corrected. What he was used to seeing in Strads ,a maker well known for his curiosity and experiments did not conform and had to be changed .That is what he says .Is that a definition of Monkeying around ? That phrase has a casual ring to it. Something like that is not what he was after .He wanted a more precise effort than something casual . Maybe he saw all this as a lifetime mission. Just yesterday I came upon a maker`s site who told us that the sound post should be right on the acoustic centre . Sacconi`s message does not seem to have penetrated everywhere . But Sacconi was not "monkeying around just out of curiosity " ,he had already made up his mind . Where would you place the blame if previous makers had been caught red handed and we had the proof they had altered the acoustic centres . Was he keeping a "Secret of Stradivari " so secret that the others were not able to leave them alone? Can we prove they did that or should we casually assume it happened ? Should the violins have remained in the "wrong state?" Do Modern Violin Gods approve of his changes ? If the "Repairers "or Sacconi ,in the article , had felt satisfied with their changes would they smooth it all out give the repairs a nice suntan to blend it all in and make it look as if nothing had been changed .
Will Modern Violin Gods be offended that so many questions are asked out of curiosity ? We never hear anything more frequently than ;"There are hardly any original Strads in existence." Was Sacconi responsible for saving Stads or was it the violin crime of the century. Don`t worry what I think . What do you think ?

[kjb]

the makers were possibly still alive and he may not wanted to implicate them.

I am not sure what you are looking for here, and maybe that is my fault. I think that I remember this book was translated from italian into english, and there may have been some misunderstandings or mistakes , I don't know.

[Michael Darnton]

John, you need to take a deep breath, and instead of imagining the worst possible thing you can, give the man a bit of credit for 1/ being by far the best restorer of the time, and 2/ wanting to do the right thing. If that doesn't work, take a paper bag and breathe deeply into it for a minute or two.
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com

[ctviolin]

[John Cadd]

Thanks CT. Don`t give up yet Michael. There`s some more still to come.Brace yourself ! As in detective stories , or in a court of law ,you need to keep to the facts that stand up with the meagre evidence available. Each side of the story needs to be tested in a logical fashion. Barristers don`t care who was right or wrong personally.Their job is to construct a credible sequence of events . Then somebody else decides .
On average would you say that most makers or restorers are also good players ,if not virtuosos ? I have heard that some makers do not play the violin. Fortunately they were taught by an older maker who may/may not have been a player.
For a non playing maker he will be listening carefully to what the player tells him. Players may not be expert in why a violin does it`s stuff. Leave out the possibility of a virtuoso monkeying around without telling .
Was Sacconi a good player?I would guess that he was .But I don`t know. He would have known many fine players personally . That`s my guess but he was an Italian and not a reclusive Englishman.
The idea that he did not want to offend other makers etc stands up well. Now we have the internet we see how quickly people can take offence within specialised professions .
Players describe to us how it can take some time to learn how to get the best out of a Strad .Some thick Guarnerius models would make some players lay them aside in despair at getting a good tone. It takes a good player to do that . Michael said that .It`s not likely that all makers would have that playing skill either . The "other " makers Sacconi talked about may have thought those Strads were his unsuccesful ones. With their cutting edge up to date knowledge (at that time ) they did what they saw was necessary to save a Strad. If there were any secrets in the profession it would have worked against a good overall result on violins themselves.
Imagine the Medical Profession keeping a cure secret .It would pay handsomely for the successful Doctor. Not so well for the patients ( in this case Violins ) being taken to the wrong doctor.

[ctviolin]

[ctviolin]

...
_________________
Look,
Listen,
Learn.

[John Cadd]

The translation of Italian is not going to change the meaning of that paragraph in any way is it ? Can you offer some explanation that would convince us about that ?Translating Italian is involved but you have to be more specific about that question. Which words exactly are you expecting to produce a different interpretation . You can read that paragraph yourself. What would be changed ? What is the Italian for Serious Error ? Also --Whenever Possible . Sacconi mentions in the paragraph , before the one quoted above , that Amati used to have the acoustic centre under the soundpost . We all know that Amati was Strad`s teacher . Strad followed his methods at the start of his carreer . Other makers knew that as well .Any disagreements so far ? Who knows the date that Strad began to alter the position of the acoustic centre ? Sacconi thought that detail was important. Do modern makers think it`s important?
If you decided to recycle an Amati style Stradivarius to make it sound like a Late period Stradivarius would it work ? If controlled comparisons between New violins and Strads is made how can you be sure the Strad is in a fit state for the test ? What would the test prove ? The Strad would have to be a genuine unaltered model .
"I am not sure what you are looking for here" is a strange question .I am asking about a paragraph in a Sacconi book on a violin forum . I am trying to understand what it really means . You can tell me to stop but just give a reason .
I may start asking why some Strads are being French Polished as well later on. Do you want me to stop that too ?

[John Cadd]

What I`m looking for here is a way to match two pieces of the jigsaw that will not fit. The golden rule with violins these days is; Keep everything original .Don`t interfere with the way it was made .That must apply ten fold with a Stradivarius. Then we have a book by Sacconi a well known expert from Italy which contains photos of lots of the original artefacts from Stradivarius himself. Or are they all fakes ? Is everything a fake ? What can we believe any more ? He tells us he altered many Strads . So he broke the rule to preserve the original . Why do I need to explain that contradiction ?

[DonLeister]

John,
You are asking a lot of questions that point in a lot of different directions, I'm having trouble connecting them to any kind of a conclusion or to the original topic of this thread. Maybe what Michael suggested , take a deep breath...

[Michael Darnton]

I believe the question boils down to "Why was Sacconi [whose main working period was from the 1920s to the 1960s] not adhering to the restoration standards of 2013?"
_________________
new blog at my site! http://darntonviolins.com/blog
my work sites: http://darntonviolins.com and http://darntonhersh.com