Change and decay?

Matthieu Besseling argues we are currently seeing a ‘second transition period’ in instrument and bow making, analogous to the changes at the end of the 18th century – but are they all to the good?

MAKING MATTERS

Points of interest to violin and bow makers

FIGURE 1 This 1969 price list for Pirastro strings (in Dutch) shows that gut strings (darm) were still among its top products, with chrome steel (chroomstaal) and aluminium also important

The aesthetics of what we today call the Classical period were characterised by equilibrium and harmony. After the ornate and sometimes volatile Baroque period, composers such as Mozart and Haydn were able to connect with the more refined expression of the music of their time. Yet, by contrast, it was a time of upheaval, especially for stringed instruments and their bows. Suddenly there was a need for greater volume and dynamic contrast, especially among the virtuosos of the day.

The new demand for a quicker-reacting instrument required a steeper angle of the neck, a higher bridge, and a gradual increase in higher-pitched tuning (a higher ‘A’). This combination increased the pressure on the belly of the instruments.

The Classical period was a time of discovery and development for luthiers and especially bow makers, while at the same time fierce experimentation was going on regarding set-up. Therefore, this period is referred to as the ‘transition period.’

Occasionally, one finds original bass-bars in instruments by the Dutch maker Johannes Cuypers (1724–1808).

NEW GENERATIONS ARE INFLUENCED BY DIGITAL RECORDINGS, RESULTING IN THE STANDARDISATION OF PERFORMANCE PRACTICE

These appear to be more or less the same thickness (6mm) as those one would have found in those of Stradivari and Amati. The high pressure on the belly gives a characteristic sound, namely the sound of the ‘transitional violin’ – brilliantly articulating, penetrating and somewhat strident. At the end of the 18th century, as a result of the aforementioned alterations, instruments were refitted with larger bass-bars, mitigating the balance between pressure and reinforcement.

The same ‘transition’ is to be noted in the manufacture of violin bows, i.e. from the Baroque bow to the so-called ‘Cramer’ bow. Works by Mozart and his contemporaries were played with these bows. Within the next 30 years, François Xavier Tourte developed the bow into the ‘modern’ version, marking the end of the transition period.

Let us now compare that period with the contemporary development of instruments and bows over the past 50 years, which have seen changes important enough for us to declare that we have firmly entered a ‘second transition period’. Since about 1970 there has been a change from gut to high-tech strings. The 1969 Dutch price list from Pirastro (figure 1) shows that gut strings were still its most important product, whereas synthetic strings from perlon and other materials were still up-and-coming products. Today’s young cellists can have trouble playing on gut strings the way they were used by Casals, Feuermann and Piatigorsky.

The entrance of carbon-fibre bows represents another important element in the second transition period. The requirement for bigger and more strident sound in large symphony orchestras has caused many string players to wear earplugs because sound-protecting screens between the sections are not sufficient. Ear protectors for musicians have now become a growing market and loss of hearing among musicians aged over 50 happens regularly. Because violin makers traditionally try to satisfy the requests of musicians, bridges and soundposts are made thinner. In this context I would like to mention that the two biggest bridge manufacturers, Aubert and Despiau, both located in France, used to make their top-of-the-line bridges from platane wood (figure 2).

FIGURE 2 Old bridges made from platane wood

These bridges had beautiful sound but are no longer available. When asked, a Despiau representative told me they were not brilliant enough.

Meanwhile, the change from analogue to digital sound has become normalised. Worldwide, new generations are influenced by digital recordings, resulting in the proliferation of competitions for young talent and the standardisation of performance practice. The resulting stress symptoms are ameliorated by the use of medication including beta-blockers.

The final outcome of this second transition is still not entirely clear, but sound criteria are clearly shifting. The enormous escalation in price of 18thcentury Italian instruments is largely due to the fact that they lend themselves much more to modernisation than the older Stainer models.

Could it be that in the future, the ‘new normal’ would be to enhance a violin’s volume electronically? And could it be that the loudest would win? In that case, sound projection would clearly be considered more important than tone quality.

And instrument makers and restorers have throughout history always acted upon the wishes of the players. When a musician enters a luthier’s workshop and asks for their instrument to be regulated according to the ‘new sound ideal’ – thin bridges and soundpost, high-tech strings of artificial material, and a fingerboard at a sharper angle – we have to wonder where this trend is heading. I am also not sure whether the angle of the strings over the bridge is a transitional phenomenon.

FIGURE 3 Fritz Winckel’s 1967 sound analysis of the 1735 ‘D’Egville’ Guarneri ‘del Gesù’, including its tonal tessitura

ALL IMAGES COURTESY MATTHIEU BESSELING

In his 1969 book Geigenbau und Klangfrage, Mittenwald luthier Konrad Leonhardt stated the ideal angle was 157–161 degrees. In Oberlin in 2004, this had changed to 154–155 degrees.

In his 1967 book Die Akustik der Geige, Fritz Winckel suggested the tonal tessitura of the violin can be compared to the registers of the human voice: the ideal characteristic has an abundance of ‘U’, ‘A’ and ‘O’ sounds (representing tonal roundness) and an ample amount of ‘I’, ‘NS’, ‘S’ and ‘E’ sounds for projection and brilliance (figure 3). In the new sound ideal, where everything has increased in volume, there are more high frequencies (I, E, S) as opposed to the low frequencies.

With an acute string angle, the nasal quality remains rather high. Consider again the old platane bridges that were judged ‘not brilliant enough’.

Speaking subjectively, instruments built according to the new sound ideal can sound unregulated, louder, strident and less colourful. Which brings up the question: do today’s violin makers have to aim for this new sound ideal, even though there is still an appreciation for the performances of Heifetz, Menuhin, Kreisler and so many others? Or do they have an educational duty to explain why the performers of the early 20th century sound so different, in order for their customers to make up their own minds?

TRANSLATION BY MICHEL SAMSON