BEHIND THE CURVE

This c.1780 violin bow by John Dodd is a perfect example of a ‘Cramer’ model

In its history, the violin bow has gone through a long and convoluted development which has been discussed and disputed over the years. As wiThall evolutionary processes, the gradual changes were driven by functionality and resources rather than aesthetic concerns; and the story depends greatly on the requirements of the players and the materials available as well as, later, the simplicity of the methods of building them. This article will examine, in particular, the development of the curve of the bow stick, which through the ages made a huge difference to the lives of players and makers alike.

We can easily establish the paThthat led to the definition of the curve for the first period of modern bows, conventionally called the ‘ancient’ or the ‘Peccatte’ curve. Up until the pernambuco era, bow makers were using wood that had significantly worse mechanical characteristics: the sound transmission capability of snakewood fibre, which was for a time the best available material for bow making, seldom exceeds the speed of 4,500m/s whereas that of pernambuco can reach over 6,000m/s. Since the woods used for making Baroque bows were much weaker than pernambuco, bow makers were forced to build relatively short bows wiTha convex curve (figure 1).

This architecture was very limiting for musicians, boThin terms of the mechanics of bow strokes and in managing dynamics. It had some advantages, however, the main one being softness. Driven to provide ever more agile and efficient tools, the bow makers searched for materials suited to their performers’ requests, and started to modify the structure of the bow so that they could make the most of what was available.

Pernambuco had been introduced in Portugal in the early 1500s, but took around 200 years to arouse the interest of bow makers. Even then, in the early years, the approach they took was not the best: I have seen a pernambuco bow attributed to Nicolas Pierre Tourte (c.1700-64) wiTha pike head and a curve that was convex, although very slight. This structure, which was well suited to the snakewood used previously, creates huge rigidity problems in pernambuco.

We must wait until the mid-18Thcentury to see a bow that can be defined as ‘modern’, providing agility, dynamics, softness and sustained sound. In a journey lasting about 100 years from the bow shown in figure 1, the curves have become lower and lower, and the stick has been made longer, requiring a higher head.

Naturally, when the head began to rise, the stick gradually bent inwards to avoid problems of stiffness and stability, until bows reached their final size between 1770 and 1780.

Around this time, the famous German violinist Wilhelm Cramer (1746-99, right) visited Paris, where he performed in the Concert Spirituel. It is said that he met wiThNicolas Léonard Tourte and showed him the new bow model he was using, which would later take his name.

Tourte, older brother to the more famous François Xavier, sensed the potential of this new design and started to use it himself. Cramer, meanwhile, immigrated to London wiThhis family in 1773, where he directed many concerts and was leader of the Italian Opera orchestra. His presence not only helped the artistic and musical development of the London scene but, as it had in Paris, the bow he brought wiThhim influenced contemporary English bow making: James Dodd began to build models wiTh‘Cramer heads’ from the latter half of the 1770s (figure 2).

Why was it that Cramer had this unusual bow model that proved so influential in Paris and London? He came from Mannheim in south-west Germany, where he had risen to the first violin post in the Orchestra of the Electoral Court of the Palatinate. The Mannheim school of composition laid the foundations for the great Central European symphony. It was unique at the time for its ability to manage dynamics; the composer and poet Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart once wrote: ‘No orchestra in the world has ever surpassed the performances of that of Mannheim; its forte is a thunder, its crescendo a roar of a waterfall, its diminuendo a clear river that murmurs far away, its piano a breaThof spring.’

FIGURE 1 The pre-Classical model of bow, c.1650

FIGURE 2 The ‘Cramer’ model of c.1750

ALL DIAGRAMS COURTESY PAOLO SARRI. DODD BOW COURTESY ALEX GARTSMAN FINE VIOLINS

A 1725 engraving of Schloss Mannheim, home of Palatine Elector Karl Theodor Wittelsbach

Czech violinist Johann Stamitz, who did much to enhance the reputation of the 'Mannheim school’

In the autumn of 1777 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was in Mannheim, and wrote to his father: ‘Today at 6 o’clock there was the gala academy. I had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Franzl playing a concert on the violin. [...] He has got a nice round sound, he doesn’t miss a note, you can hear everything, everything is well marked. He has a beautiful staccato, wiThonly one run, boThascending and descending. And I have never heard a double trill like the one he does.’ Mozart was so impressed by the value of the Mannheim musicians that he paid homage to the composition school in the first important work he released in Paris, in the winter of 1778. In the opening of his Symphony no. 31 ‘Paris’, we can hear a distinctive mark of the Mannheim school, the ‘Mannheim Rocket’: a crescendo over a fast ascending staccato scale or arpeggio.

All these sound characteristics, many times witnessed, make one think that in the hands of these musicians there must have been a particular bow used, one wiThan internal curve. To use a metaphor for how a bow works, we can think of the curve as if it were a car’s suspension mechanism, which allows the wheels to manage the engine power by adapting to the road profile. If the suspension were not there, every bump or bend would send the car off' the road. For bows the question is no different. The internal curve is the fundamental element that connects the hair (the wheels) to the power of the pernambuco wood (the engine). A bow wiTha high head and frog made from a pernambuco stick would in no way be playable without a curve; bereft of contact wiThthe strings in the long notes the performer would see the bow fall sideways and in the leaps the bounce point would always change.

The great fame of the Mannheim school began when Karl Theodor Wittelsbach in 1742 became Palatine Elector and hired the talented violinist Johann Stamitz (1717-57). Stamitz was a Czech violinist and composer who received his musical education in the Jesuit college of Bohemia in Jihlava, one of the best music schools in Europe. He probably arrived in Mannheim wiTha violin and a working bow. So important was the Czech school that we find traces of it even in the training career of another great musician: Giuseppe Tartini (1692-1770). In 1710, fleeing Padua, he was welcomed in the Minorite Monastery in Assisi and was able to work wiThcomposer Bohuslav Matej Cernohorsky, familiarly known in Italy as the ‘Padre Boemo’. It should also be noted that among the Tartini relics preserved at the Trieste Conservatoire we can find two bows, one of which is made of pernambuco wiTha high head and a slight internal curve. Since Tartini died in 1770, it would not be too far fetched to see a connection between the high level of the Bohemian music school and the musical instruments built for it; and to conjecture that the history of pernambuco bows wiThthe internal curve began precisely over there.

Frog and head of a pre-Classical viola da gamba bow, mid-18Thcentury

VIOLA DA GAMBA BOW DOMINIC IBBOTSON/COURTESY UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

The first model of bow wiTha modern curve was developed wiThthe aim of giving the performers a tool wiThthe agility to manage dynamics, but above all one that displayed homogeneous behaviour along its entire length. Ultimately, the bow is nothing more than a leaf spring, very similar to that of a cart, but one wiThonly a single wheel: the performer’s arm. And, by observing the curve distribution of the first period of the modern arc, it is easy to understand the engineering logic behind it. The lowest point of the curve in this model (figure 3) is positioned in the middle of the stick, wiThthe steepness of the curve increasing towards the frog and decreasing towards the head.

A curve distributed this way gives more resistance at the frog, where the performer’s arm has the maximum incisiveness, and is more yielding at the head, increasing its softness. WiThthis model we have a structure that makes the stick flex outwards when subjected to the operating load, giving softness and resistance especially in the middle of the bow (figure 4), considerably increasing the dynamic possibilities and making the sound soft and homogeneous throughout its length.

WiTha few small technical adjustments, the ancient curve of modern bows took the archetier’s craft from the first Cramer models to Dominique Peccatte (1810-74) without any radical change of design philosophy. But it was heavily remodelled in the second half of the 19 Thcentury by the hand of François Nicolas Voirin (1833-85), one of the most famous craftsmen of the French tradition. But his aim was not to improve its performance.

WHEN THE HEAD BEGAN TO RISE, THE STICK GRADUALLY BENT INWARDS TO AVOID PROBLEMS OF STIFFNESS

In my opinion, the ancient curve is superior to the modern one. Its only flaws are in the difficulty of manufacture and the time required to build it. When the stick has been shaped to the correct thickness, the frog and the hair must be mounted. For this, the maker starts by removing wood from the tail and working towards the head, often checking the progress by putting the bow under tension until the desired weight, fluidity and softness are obtained.

However, in the mid-19Thcentury something changed: not the needs of performers but of society and a new market. In the time of the Industrial Revolution, the newly rich bourgeoisie were entering society and suddenly the demand for music was at an all-time high. Until the mid-1800s, bow making workshops comprised at most two or three craftsmen, many of them great bow makers. Dominique Peccatte had Joseph Henry and Pierre Simon, and Étienne Pajeot, Joseph Fonclause and Nicolas Rémy Maire, to name a few, working wiThhim. From the second half of the 19 Thcentury onwards, the big Mirecourt workshops such as those of Bazin and Morizot began to dominate. But increasing the workforce was not the definitive solution: bows were still very difficult to build and even the most skilled makers took a long time over each one. For this reason, Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume charged his cousin Voirin, who worked for him, to develop a new model of bow that was easier and faster to make.

Voirin began to develop the modern curve model around 1855. Starting wiThhis work and continuing through the 20Thcentury, the lowest point of the curve progressively moved closer and closer towards the head.

This would reduce manufacturing times and simplify the construction process. Voirin’s innovation conceptually overturned the mechanics of the bow and led to the return of a more rigid structure.

Violin bow by François Nicolas Voirin, 1880

Any curve can be defined by three. On a bow, these are the height of the head, the height of the frog, and the closest point between the stick and the hair. As we see in figure 5, following this curve, the last third of the bow will always be much more curved than the two thirds that go towards the frog, which will be almost straight. This new idea greatly simplified bow making techniques. It meant that, instead of starting to work the stick from the tail, the bow maker starts from the last third and, thanks to the unbalanced curve distribution, their only worry is making sure the upper half of the bow works, since in the lower half there are no particular loads.

However, while this curve model simplifies life for less demanding bow makers, it also reduces the expressive abilities of the more talented players. On the one hand, having less tension at the heel, the performer’s arm can more easily manage the sound. But since the bow hair has to make contact wiThthe strings of the instrument, each curve model must necessarily yield in one area. The ancient curve yields in the last 10cm, which increases the player’s hand sensitivity, whereas the modern curve is extremely strong in the last third, which causes the stick to yield in the remaining two thirds. This made it considerably more difficult to manage the sound at the tip.

VOIRIN BOW ROBERT BAILEY/COURTESY TARISIO

Hence, the modern bow model behaves mechanically in the exact opposite way from the ancient one. As the stick is straighter in the first two thirds and blocked by the steeper curve forward, it is pressed downwards when the player rests their arm on the strings, hampering them and creating handling problems in the middle of the bow, rather than moving outwards and allowing infinite dynamic possibilities as the ancient curve allows (figure 6). Some of the bow makers who used this structure were undisputed and indisputable masters of the craft, creating beautiful and efficient bows. However, many of their works evince problems wiThexcessive rigidity.

Another parameter that changes considerably between the two curve structures is the balance. Many performers prefer to have an ancient-curve bow in their hand because it feels more stable. This is because, wiThthe curve further forwards, the angle of the head decreases by a few degrees, which results in a lightening of the tip and consequently less stability when the bow is placed on the strings. The ancient curve, more centred, provides a little more weight at the tip and allows the performer to feel the physicality of the bow – and, as a consequence, its contact wiThthe instrument

THE ANCIENT CURVE PROVIDES A LITTLE MORE WEIGHT AT THE TIP AND ALLOWS THE PERFORMER TO FEEL ITS PHYSICALITY

OUCHARD BOW DANIEL LANE/COURTESY TARISIO

The modern curve, wiThits various interpretations, was the mainstay around which bow making revolved until the second half of the 20Thcentury when Bernard Ouchard (right), one of the most highly regarded bow makers in France, began a study to rediscover the structure of the ancient curve.

Born in 1925, Ouchard moved from France to Geneva at the age of 24, to work at the workshop of Alfred Vidoudez, one of the most important in the world at that time. He found an ideal environment in which to work – not oppressed by the anxiety of production and sale, and surrounded by the best performers of the period who frequently came to visit, he had the opportunity to study all the bows that passed through his hands. He realised that the bows most loved by the greatest violinists all had an element in common: the ancient curve, which at that time had fallen into disuse.

During Ouchard’s 22 years at Vidoudez’s workshop he rediscovered the great tradition of enhancing the curve wiThheat, known to the likes of Tourte, Persoit, Peccatte and the many French bow makers of the first period. In 1971 – and this is the main reason why he is so loved by his French and non-French peers – Ouchard left Geneva and returned to Mirecourt to teach at the newly opened violin making school. He enthusiastically dedicated himself to teaching, and was able to transfer to his students the memories of a forgotten tradition, in spite of his untimely demise. He died in Vittel on 2 June 1979 aged 54, having brought the great bow making tradition back to France.