• What's New
  • On-Site
  • Public Events
  • In the News
  • FAQ
  • Blog
• Item 2
• Item 3
• For Sale
  • Conventional
    • Violins
    • Small Violas
  • Octet
    • Mezzo
    • Alto
• Parts
  • Endpins
  • Tailguts
  • Tailpieces
• Octet
  • Treble
  • Soprano
  • Mezzo
  • Alto
  • Tenor
  • Baritone
  • Bass
  • Contrabass
  • History
    • Chapter 1
    • Chapter 2
  • Myths
• Contact Us
• Links
  • Sites
  • Teachers
    • instrument
    • location
  • Makers

"It Ain't What You Don't Know; It's What You Do Know That Ain't So."

The pithy quote above, variously attributed to Will Rogers and other folkloric sources, serves as the introduction to a page that cannot possibly be too brief. I'll deal here with the various criticisms, many absurd on their faces, that involve instruments of both the new and the old violin family. It seems there is no end to the number of peope who put forth opinions about octet violins without bothering to hear them first. Some things are just too obvious to verify, right?

These comments are added with the newest at the top. The number is not a ranking. I just add as I think of things I want to rant about.

Hang on. Here we go.

Myth #3:

I want my new octet violin polished so that it looks bright and shiny, just like the old violins do.

Response: It usually surprises people to know that the old master violin makers in Cremona did not ordinarily polish their instruments. A classic example is the "Messiah" Stradivari violin, an exceptionally pristine example of the period (even if there is dispute about its provenance). The "Messiah" has a rough, unpolished varnish. The original purpose of varnish was (and still is) to protect the wood. Over time, as makers gained more skill, the varnish became something that added to the visual appeal of the violin. Ultimately, the varnish assumed so much importance that many individuals believed it held the secret of the much-desired Cremonese sound.

The high shine we are used to seeing today is a relatively modern practice that probably came about due to normal wear, retouching, and the need of violin shops to polish the varnish to make the instruments more appealing and saleable. I normally prefer not to polish new violins because the drying process for varnish extends over some years. I'm not a fan of the glassy, mirror-like polish, but if someone insists I'll rub away until the surface has a nice low-luster gloss but still shows how the varnish was applied.

Myth #2:

The "B" form cello was Stradivari's greatest triumph.

Response: The "B" form cello was not Stradivari's greatest triumph. It was his best series of compromises. The "G" form violin was his greatest triumph.

Every time the cello was reduced in size, it was a loss, not a gain. Why? Because the cello has traditionally been the bass of the violin family. Just think for a moment about what happens when you make the bass instrument smaller and smaller. In the case of the cello you end up with an instrument that is close to a tenor violin in size but isn't easy to play in the tenor range. It sounds nothing at all like a tenor while at the same time still having to function as the bass of the violin family. But it doesn't sound like the bass any more, either, because its body is too small, and, to top it off, it is expected to cover such a wide range of notes that the cellist must learn three different clefs to play it!

I do not mean to argue that there are no good-sounding cellos (I've made a number myself) or that there are no cellists that play well in the upper registers (there are many). My point is that the modern small cello is now really a sort of baritone, while the analogous instrument of the new violin family, which is called a baritone, actually makes a much better bass. When it came to the size of the bass instruments, the old masters had it right to begin with. If you could hear side-by-side comparisons of the "B" cello with the big cellos such as the Servais Stradivari and others of the so-called "Venetian" basses (with modern setup), or a good, second-generation octet baritone, there would be no more talk about Strad's great "triumph."

Let's dis-myth this fondly held fable forthwith.

Myth #1:

You can't play the standard repertoire on the new family because the music will not sound the way the composer intended it.

Response: This is one of the great Straw Man arguments put forth by individuals who obviously have not done their homework. Given the change from gut strings to strings with metal windings that took place beginning in the 1650s, and to the massive alterations that occurred to virtually all violins around 1800, which involved grafting on a newer and longer neck, setting the neck at a steeper angle, taking off the top and installing a longer and heavier bass bar, using a taller and heavier bridge, and so forth, this argument falls flat. No composer writing before 1800, were he alive today, would hear the music as he expected it to sound. Not one.

On the other hand, many great composers and conductors of the post-1800 era, including Richard Wagner, Hector Berlioz, Hans von Bulow, and Leopold Stowkowski are well known for their active acceptance of new or improved sounds-- mainly because the old ones were not all that good. We improve instruments like the piano, the flute, and the clarinet all the time. We play great classical music on them, and no one raises an eyebrow. What makes the violin so different?

It's time to give this myth a long and overdue rest.

Last updated April 26, 2008