Why I Would Rather Read About Violin Construction
Copyright ©1999 Howard Coleman
Violin construction is boring -
right? The perfect design was developed 300 years ago and it
can't be improved. How exciting can it be to copy that design? Is
there any chance of surpassing it? Well, I don't make or play
violins - I am a dedicated guitar man - but I have to admit that
the violin-making world does have a lot of information to offer
that we can learn from. With most of the former ways now
impossible to recapture we should appreciate how disadvantaged we
are with our high technology. Allow me to get up on my soapbox to
explain...
Selection of tonewood
Today, wood for soundboards is selected and graded
according to visual standards. For example we like unblemished,
light- coloured wood with straight grain and a certain number of
annual growth rings per inch. The closer the wood fits this
standard the more it costs. There are accounts of tonewood
selection from Stradivari's day suggesting that it was selected
in a completely different way - acoustically! Some reports claim
that luthiers went into the forests and tapped trees with a
hammer to find the resonant ones. One report (Rémy Gug, The
Strad, January 1991) describes how newly felled timber was slid
down long ice-covered chutes called sovenda from high up in the
mountains. An "Italian gentleman" might have waited for
days to identify suitable tonewood which he did using his ears.
Suitably resonant logs made a singing sound as they travelled
down the chute and were earmarked for the luthier. What an
advantage it must have been to a luthier, firstly to be able to
work with wood selected acoustically and secondly to have a whole
log - providing an enormous quantity of material with similar
physical properties. Under those conditions a luthier could
really get to know the effect of subtle variations in thickness,
shape etc.
The violin evolved
In those days luthiers would commonly learn their craft
from successive generations of their families enabling them to
draw from more than one lifetime's worth of solid practical
experience and continuous experimentation. Improvement was
steady, like evolution, and perfection was achieved. Now, we pick
up information from books, magazines, the Internet, videos and
even special classes. We don't feel lacking in information but
these sources can't substitute for all those years of
experimentation. The feel and sound of a perfectly braced top
cannot be adequately described with words. It has to be
experienced.
Guitars have diversified
Steel-string guitars have been around for less than 100
years and, in my opinion, have yet to reach perfection. Unlike
high quality violins, designs for guitars have diversified to
suit various styles of playing. Builders of flat-tops almost
invariably make dreadnoughts, 000-size (folk) guitars, 12-strings
and travel guitars too. This dilutes the learning experience. I
think that, generally, the makers of arch-top guitars are better
placed to perfect their designs because they tend to specialise
in that one style.
Research must culminate in a product
There has been considerable scientific analysis of what
constitutes a good instrument and what makes it good.
Unfortunately, rather than tweaking a good design (evolution),
makers have sometimes made radical changes with dubious success
(in my opinion and many others'). The marketing men, presumably
out of desperation that all that research must culminate in a
product, then tried to persuade us with glossy adverts that the
new improved designs are better. Gibson's Mark series was
radically and bravely different - scientifically designed - but
it was unsuccessful and Gibson soon ceased production. I have
read that this was due to an incompatibility with mass production
but I have my doubts. I remember my disappointment and surprise
when I picked one up in a shop, played it, and found it was
completely dead. Scientific analysis of musical instruments
fascinates me but, in my opinion, has not yet delivered any
winning formula. I am also sceptical about the use of plastic in
acoustic guitars. I am told that it is necessary because the
world's supply of suitable wood is disappearing but is it really?
I know that alternative wood species are available and I know
that producing plastic guitars, especially bowl-backs, cuts
costs...
Peace and support
Imagine the working conditions of my hero, Antonio
Stradivari. The peace - no phones ringing, no radios blaring etc.
The camaraderie - with four other famous luthiers - next door,
over the road and just round the corner. No Internet either - all
that time he could devote to lutherie - and he did too - making
about 25 violins a year according to the Hills (Antonio
Stradivari. His life and work. Reprint of 1902 edition by Dover
Publications).
Over-use of technology
I don't have a problem accepting power tools. The
ancient violin makers apparently often used apprentices to do a
lot of their tedious tasks and that is basically the same idea.
However, when it comes to computer controlled machining I have
reservations. OK for instrument necks - if the first one is
perfect they should all be perfect - but for thicknessing and
voicing - don't be fooled!
Why I would rather read about violin construction
Why? - because guitar construction has been spoilt by the times
we live in. Most guitars are made with intensive-farming mass
production methods rather than craftsmanship and they are sold
with soap-powder marketing methods. Improvement to the designs is
all too often for commercial reasons, and sales-spiel has nothing
to do with musical acoustics. Before you decide that my behaviour
is strange for a guitar lover perhaps I ought to stress that I do
enjoy reading anything technical about guitars so long as it is
not tainted with marketing.
Right, now I have got all that off my chest I'll get down off my
soapbox and get back to the guitar building.
Last revised: November 06, 1999.