Official Luthiers Forum!

The Art of Violin Making
by
Chris Johnson and Roy Courtnall
Illustrations by Adrian Lucas
ISBN 0 7090 5876 4
Robert Hale Ltd.


I just bought this book and received it yesterday. This is a great book on violin making. It is easier to read and has more detail than Cumpiano & Natelson's Guitarmaking but is similar in tone. There are hundreds of illustrations and the various sections on building the different components of a violin are quite detailed.

As far as I can tell they only describe how to do things with hand tools. I think that is OK since I can usually figure out a machine way of doing most hand tool operations when I think it is appropriate.

The book as brief biographies of Amati(s), Stradiveri, Guarneri(s), and Stainer along with some photos of a representitive instrument.

There is a chapter on Contermporary Makers and I must confess that I had not heard of any of them. That reflects more on me being out of touch with the viloin world rather than the authors' choice.

The tools section is just what you'd expect with the same tools you would find in a guitar construction book. There are more kinds of scrapers and gouges, however.

The construction chapters are also very good. (That's good because that is why I bought the book) As with any construction book they describe only one way of doing any step and only occasionally mention that there may be others. I think that's the right approach since multiple methods only add uncertainty to someone who's never done it before. Provided that the approach described is a good one. That seems to be the case here. At least I feel that I should be able to safely do any of the operations described.

This is not a cheap book, however. I paid $85 for it on-line. But the other books that I have and have examined were either so poorly written or left far too much to the imanination. This one is well worth the money.

Mike Mahar38784.4155671296

Sounds good, Mike. Are you going to make a violin?

_________________
Rian Gitar og Mandolin

[QUOTE=Arnt] Sounds good, Mike. Are you going to make a violin?[/QUOTE]
Probably. I'm trying to decide if I want to make a traditional violin or a 5 string viola that Al Carruth designed. If I make the violin, I will learn what goes into that process. Al's viola design is sufficently different from a traditional design that a lot of the violin details are missing. However, I have a violin and I don't have a 5 string viola. Decisions, decisions, sigh

Mike I have built mostly archtop guitars -- is there useful information in the book to make it a worthwhile purchase for my application?

[QUOTE=Anthony Z] Mike I have built mostly archtop guitars -- is there useful information in the book to make it a worthwhile purchase for my application?[/QUOTE]
There is always some technique or idea that you could get from a book like this but at $85 it is a bit expensive for that. If you think you might build a violin some day or even just want to know how it's done, go ahead and get it. If violins have no interst for you then don't bother.

I had a great uncle that made violins. When I was eight I was fascinated by
them and the fact that he actually made them. I'm certain he had a great
influence in my ultimately building instruments. I still have 2 of his violins
today. Every once and awhile I pull them out of their cases and get a
notion to build some. I've looked at that book as well as several others,
but never took the plunge. If I ever decide to make the leap, your review
will likely lead me to buying this book. Mike, thanks for your review. Just
what I needed. Another instrument to never quite master!
Craig

Mike
I am curious if John Harrison is listed in that book as a contemporary maker.John How38784.9847916667

_________________
Tickle your guitar daily, and it'll tickle you back.

I don't have that book but do have another book by those authors on
classical guitar making. Adrian Lucas, the illustrator for both books is a
good guitar maker and very knowledgable.

I have heard it is the best single resource to make a violin. However violin
making has a long tradition of craft being handed down from master to
apprentice and a lot of secrets are kept. Plus since there is a standard to
follow *Stradivarius* any deviation will have a big effect on how an expert
values the instrument. Depending on your goal it might be better to save a
little more and get Secrets of Stradivari by Sacconi.

KenMcKay38784.6409722222

The Science Channel has a program called, "How It's Made," and I saw a section on violins recently. Now, it's only a half-hour show, and in that time they feature at least three different "things" being made, so details are superficial; but still, violins seem so much easier to make than guitars! The molds are tiny, you can "palm" the whole instrument body, construction details are pretty simple, and it looks like you could bend fifty sides in a day, by hand, without working up a sweat! There are some difficulties, though. I've learned from other sources that violin bridges are especially critical and somewhat tricky to make--but then fitting and placing one is comparatively easy. Carving a good-looking scroll looks like it would be problematical until you've done a lot of them, and turning and fitting your own tuning pegs would have a learning curve. The ease of storing, moving, working and finishing those small pieces of wood, though, make it look like a piece of cake! All that, AND the wood is much less expensive, especially compared to the cost of building a fine archtop guitar. And then, if your skills are good, you can charge considerably more for a violin than a guatar! Am I wrong?

[QUOTE=CarltonM] The Science Channel has a program called, "How It's Made," and I saw a section on violins recently. Now, it's only a half-hour show, and in that time they feature at least three different "things" being made, so details are superficial; but still, violins seem so much easier to make than guitars! The molds are tiny, you can "palm" the whole instrument body, construction details are pretty simple, and it looks like you could bend fifty sides in a day, by hand, without working up a sweat! There are some difficulties, though. I've learned from other sources that violin bridges are especially critical and somewhat tricky to make--but then fitting and placing one is comparatively easy. Carving a good-looking scroll looks like it would be problematical until you've done a lot of them, and turning and fitting your own tuning pegs would have a learning curve. The ease of storing, moving, working and finishing those small pieces of wood, though, make it look like a piece of cake! All that, AND the wood is much less expensive, especially compared to the cost of building a fine archtop guitar. And then, if your skills are good, you can charge considerably more for a violin than a guatar! Am I wrong?[/QUOTE]

Carlton, you are not serious...right?

I can't think of a single thing I would consider easy regarding making and setting up violin family instruments. The very hardest part of violin making is developing an eye for the little details that make a decent playable instrument. It literally takes years of study. By comparison it think guitarmaking is much easier, except for proper fretwork.

Violin wood can be your pension if it is good. It is much more expensive than archtop wood if it is old and seasoned.

It is interesting that you have that perception though.   

[QUOTE=KenMcKay] The very hardest part of violin making is developing an eye for the little details that make a decent playable instrument. It literally takes years of study.[/QUOTE]
Barring the occasional savant, Isn't it the same for guitar building?

[QUOTE=KenMcKay] Violin wood can be your pension if it is good. It is much more expensive than archtop wood if it is old and seasoned.[/QUOTE]
Really? For a master grade instrument, would you have to pay, say, $300-plus for back & sides, another $200-plus for the top, and another $75-$100 for the neck and incidentals (granted, fingerboard cost may well be higher for violins!)? If so, you're getting ripped off! Old-and-seasoned might demand a premium above those figures for guitars, too!

Understand, I'm not saying that making a living building violins is easy. Goodness knows, orchestral instrument makers face a level of customer expectations that could make a strong man cry (and probably has, on many occasions!). It just seems that the physical effort and overhead cost of making guitars would be much greater than for violins; and, once craftsmanship and reputation have reached a certain level, violin makers then can charge a great deal more for their instruments. Quality bows sell for many thousands of dollars, so professional violinists expect to pay a princely sum for their instruments. Professional guitarists can buy a good pick for twenty-five cents! Not many will spend fifty thousand dollars for a guitar!

I'm always willing to be shown the error of my ways, so if you (or anyone else) can take the time to explain how I'm wrong, please do.

Years ago I saw a TV show, in which an author (wrote 'Paper Lion' about a similar thing with football: what WAS the guy's name?) played a season with the NY Phil under Bernstein. As part of the show he interviewed each of the first chair players, and the first question was: "What's the most difficult instrument to play?". Each said that his own was, of course, and all had good reasons.

As you suspect, Carlton, it's physically fairly easy to make something like a violin, but, as Ken says, the standards for violin making are, almost literally, impossibly high. Not in the way that guitar makers think of them, though. Guitars get held to an industrial standard of 'perfection': flawless joinery and finish count for a lot. By comparison the best violins have to show the hand of the maker, while still being 'perfect' in some sense. A great violin has to look like an individual work of art, with a style of it's own, but firmly within the tradition of the Italian Baroque. AND it has to play and sound like a Strad, and nobody knows how to do that! The 'best' violin makers build 'bench copies' which mimic every scratch and worn spot of a given instrument, and the best of the best make them sound almost like the originals. There's as much difference (more!) between them and the cheap Chinese fiddles your local WalMart sells as there is between the guitars in the Wally and the finest ones being built by the best makers.

One big difference between fiddles and guitars: it would be easy to argue that we're in the 'Golden Age' of the guitar right now, while we have to look back about three hundred years for the same thing in violins. Standards in the guitar world, both for looks and tone, have ramped up a lot in the thirty years or so I've been in it, and it must be daunting to come in as a newbie now. But, a modern guitar maker can go to the source these days, ask questions and generally get answers, some of which even make sense! Barring the invention of practical time travel we're pretty well stuck over what we can find out about Strad & Co.

That, of course, lends another level of difficulty to making fiddles. There are 'schools' that take different approaches, and look on those other guys as ignorant fools at best, and heretics at worst. Since there is almost no way of sorting out the truth in some instances you pays yer money and takes yer choice. I often think that you could start a real brawl at almost any violin maker's meeting by quietly saying the word 'varnish'. Within five minutes they'll be breaking chairs over each other. Absent real information, it becomes religion.

I should stop, but want to mention one other thing: there's a sort of paradox in acoustics involved. It's harder to make a good classical guitar than to make a good steel string, even though the classical looks simpler. In fact, the 'simplicity' is one reason it's harder, IMO! There's less obvious stuff to adjust. The fiddle looks even simpler, so it's not really surprising that it's harder to make a good one. Simpler systems can have more complex behavior.

[QUOTE=CarltonM] [QUOTE=KenMcKay] The very hardest part of violin
making is developing an eye for the little details that make a decent
playable instrument. It literally takes years of study.[/QUOTE]
Barring the occasional savant, Isn't it the same for guitar building?

I don't think so. For the most part almost anything goes with
guitarmaking, there are all different sizes and shapes and no one is
looked upon as the standard. In the violin world the very subtle
differences make a huge difference and an expert can tell wheather it was
made by the hands of a professional or an amateur from across the room.
I have seen guitarmakers advance very quickly from amateur-rank-
beginner to making pretty nice shiny instruments in a short time with no
formal education. If you want to compare violin making to guitar making I
think a fair example would be someone like Mario, who is really focusing
on the details of his craft.

[QUOTE=KenMcKay] Violin wood can be your pension if it is good. It is
much more expensive than archtop wood if it is old and seasoned.[/
QUOTE]
Really? For a master grade instrument, would you have to pay, say,
$300-plus for back & sides, another $200-plus for the top, and another
$75-$100 for the neck and incidentals (granted, fingerboard cost may
well be higher for violins!)? If so, you're getting ripped off! Old-and-
seasoned might demand a premium above those figures for guitars, too!

Understand, I'm not saying that making a living building violins is easy.
Goodness knows, orchestral instrument makers face a level of customer
expectations that could make a strong man cry (and probably has, on
many occasions!). It just seems that the physical effort and overhead cost
of making guitars would be much greater than for violins; and, once
craftsmanship and reputation have reached a certain level, violin makers
then can charge a great deal more for their instruments. Quality bows
sell for many thousands of dollars, so professional violinists expect to
pay a princely sum for their instruments. Professional guitarists can buy
a good pick for twenty-five cents! Not many will spend fifty thousand
dollars for a guitar!

I'm always willing to be shown the error of my ways, so if you (or anyone
else) can take the time to explain how I'm wrong, please do. [/
QUOTE]

There is no error in an opinion, just when you say making violins looks so
much easier it tends to get me going. Yes I wll agree the you can hold the
violin wood in your hand and bend a rib quicker, but that aint what it is
about. There is a thousand more details.

BTW I make bass violins.

Alan...It was George Plimpton.

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

I have Courtnall's book on Violins and it is a great resource! Great illustrations and good details. HIs Classical guitar book is in the same catagory. I make violins and classical guitars. I have never made a steel string...yet, but Alan is right in the little deatils that are very hard to see until you study the great instruments. Little things like the corners and the purfling. It looks simple but...

[QUOTE=Alan Carruth]
I often think that you could start a real brawl at almost any violin maker's meeting by quietly saying the word 'varnish'. Within five minutes they'll be breaking chairs over each other. [/QUOTE]

You're not kidding! I talked with an old violin maker from Gothenburg, Sweden a couple of years ogo. He told me they used to have 2 violin maker's clubs in that town. On more than one occasion members from one club had entered the other one and things had gotten out of hand like you describe after discussions about varnish!

_________________
Rian Gitar og Mandolin

The contemporary makers profiled in the book are:

• Paul Bowers
• Glen Collins
• John Dilworth
• Roger Hargrave
• Patrick Jowett
• Pactric and Andrea Robin-Frandsen

Of these, the only name familiar to me is Roger Hargrave and I don't know anything about him. These may be the current heavy hitters in the violin world but that's a world I know almost nothing about.

I too was impressed by the simplicity of the physical structure of a violin. It is, after all, just a wooden box with a stick glued to the end of it. But, then again, so is a guitar. Of course, the devil is in the details and it appears to me the the details of a violin are a greater component of the final instrument than of a guitar.

For a guitar, a beginner can take a time proven design and, with care and quality materials, make an instrument that sounds as good or better than a quality factory instrument.
So much of the sound of the guitar is in the design. I don't want to imply that the remaining 20% of the sound that you get by sweating the details isn't important.

I haven't made a violin but I get the impression by those who have that so much of the sound is dictated by the shape of the arch, the graduation of the top and back, and the final setup that a beginner is unlikely to make an instrument the is much more than average.

Would it be somewhat right in thinking that violins are smaller and have less room for error, or that minute changes will have a greater effect than they would on guitars? Size matters, huh?

_________________
Give me 50 cents worth of regular.
Check my oil too, if you don`t mind,,,

Violin customers are so fussy that for the price they are willing to pay for one instrument, you have to go through so much trouble unless you have the passion for this instrument and play it yourself, which would make you more comprehensive of the buyer and wouldnet mind all of their caprices! My last penny

[QUOTE=Alan Carruth] As you suspect, Carlton, it's physically fairly easy to make something like a violin, but, as Ken says, the standards for violin making are, almost literally, impossibly high..[/QUOTE]
That's been my point all along--it's easier (and less expensive) to make a violin. It is harder to have your instruments accepted professionally, but if you're good, that will happen, and it will be easier to make a decent living from it.
[QUOTE=Alan Carruth]...it has to play and sound like a Strad, and nobody knows how to do that!.[/QUOTE]
So many things have been changed on every Strad in use today, that even a Strad doesn't play like a Strad! A stock Stradivarius would be unusable in a modern setting because of its very different setup. As far as nobody knowing how to equal the construction of a Strad...I'm not convinced that that is strictly true. So much research has gone into the wood, the shape, the graduations and the finish of the master's work, that everything can be, and has been duplicated. As has been speculated elsewhere, the only thing that can't be copied is the hundreds of years worth of seasoning the wood has gone through. I'd wager that in 200 years there are violins being made today that will equal or surpass Stadivari's. This may be the second "golden age" of violin making, and nobody knows it!
[QUOTE=Alan Carruth]There's as much difference (more!) between them and the cheap Chinese fiddles your local WalMart sells as there is between the guitars in the Wally and the finest ones being built by the best makers.[/QUOTE]
No argument there!
[QUOTE=Alan Carruth]But, a modern guitar maker can go to the source these days, ask questions and generally get answers, some of which even make sense! [/QUOTE]
As I mentioned above, I think the answeres are available from contemporary sources.
[QUOTE=Alan Carruth] I often think that you could start a real brawl at almost any violin maker's meeting by quietly saying the word 'varnish'.[/QUOTE]
How about,"water-based?"
CarltonM38787.478275463

[QUOTE=KenMcKay] BTW I make bass violins. [/QUOTE]
Now, THAT'S hard!