Violin Forum/Message Board

[actonern]

The objective of serious modern violin makers is to aquire skills that allow for the making of CONSISTENTLY high quality instruments... the income and reputation of a maker depends on it.

Yet it's been observed many times that even the great one had lacklustre moments.

Some of you experienced makers have had the benefit of physically holding, playing and repairing Stradivari's creations.

Those of you who have, and have encountered one of his "duds" ... were you able in each case to identify where and how he'd gone in the ditch?

I guess I'm wondering whether it's possible to consistently turn out superior instruments or if there is an element of inexplicable chance to the whole thing.

[Michael Darnton]

I've seen a couple of duds, and yes, in each case the arching was something I wouldn't have expected should work. In particular, one was a narrow violin with a very tall, round arch, like a Peter of Mantua, but narrower. The violin was in nearly new condition, and had been making the rounds of shops, each getting a shot (unsuccessful) at making it work.

[Andres Sender]

Were the problems on the duds as bad as problems you've seen on other instruments of his which work anyway, or were they on another order of magnitude?

[Michael Darnton]

They were instruments on the far fringes of what might work. . . . and didn't, even for him. The type of thing I wouldn't do because I could never make them work, and that he didn't do to that extent except on those non-working violins.

[CT Dolan]

You never know unless you try and Stradivari, much to his credit, tried so many different things. Not all of his experiments could have been expected to "work", which begs the question of how one defines the term, given the context. In other words, how far does Stradivari have to fall before an instrument of his can be considered a failure? To use an example, might such an instrument be worse with regard to tone, power, etc. than a better-quality 19th-Century German fiddle (which may be a decent instrument in its own right, but nonetheless lacks the same pedigree)? Or, does even the least of Stradivari's creations surpass such common instruments?

[Michael Darnton]

It's a relative question, with no solid answer Basically a dud can be an instrument "you" don't like. . . and then someone comes along and makes it sound great. :-) One of the ones I'm thinking of wouldn't beat a Roth, though, so I'm sure it's not one of the good ones.

[byacey]

I'm sure Stradivari utilized something of a self imposed quality control. If one of his experiments yielded a terrible instrument from the start, he probably salvaged what he could and used it on a subsequent instrument. Where he drew the line of what goes out into the world, and what goes into the woodstove, we can only guess.

[CT Dolan]

Although slightly off topic, the above leads to a question. Of the two most highly-regarded makers, Stradivari and del Gesu, whom would you rather spend a week working alongside, and why? What if I threw Andrea Amati into the mix, where would he rate? I know these are rather silly questions, but humor me.

[actonern]

Stradivari for me... just to learn his working techniques and varnish methods...

Guarneri may sound just as good, or better, but never rose to the same plane in terms of craft.

[CT Dolan]

I tell you what, let's make it a full apprenticeship, so we actually have a chance to learn something!