Official Luthiers Forum!

I would like to refine a point that I made earlier about Stradivarious and the possibility that he subbed out some of his construction. This suggestion was characterized as an erroneous factoid that supported a spurious position. (rather hastily I thought )However, the fact that someone's book does not mention that Strad subbed out his work seems to be slim evidence to justify a blanket condemnation of that statement. This is especially true since there is evidence to the contrary.
According to a talk Roger Hargreave gave at a Newark seminar, Stradivari probably did use out-workers but kept very strict quality control. According to Roger, it would have been impossible for him and his sons to make so many instruments otherwise.
There were Italian Sculptors during that period who did almost no sculpting but served as a kind of quality control supervisor and then signed their name to the finished work.
I am not suggesting that Stradivarious went to that extreme, but I am suggesting that it is entirely likely, given the accepted practices of the times, that he did sub out some of the construction of his instruments(not an unsupported remark after all) and that if true, it in no way deminishes his status as a luthier anymore than to say that a person who uses a CAD machine to make bridges and other parts has lost status as a luthier..
And finally, to restate my spurious point, by extension, we should be able to call a person who builds instruments and farms out the finish work a luthier without fear of contradition.
There. Now I can support ASIA.

Well said John, I feel better now so I know you do.

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

"... factoid originally referred to a piece of information that has the
appearance of being reliable or accurate, as from being repeated so often
that people assume it is true."

John, you and Roger might be right, Roger is certainly an authority on the
subject and this is not a factoid by the above definition in my opinion
because I have not heard it once let alone repeated often. And I read quite
a bit of violinmaking books and forums. So if you are relaying what you
heard from a very reliable source I respect you and your opinion and don't
fault you for expressing it. Bill Moll may have heard it often and I know he
is more of an authority on the subject than I, so to him it may be a
factoid.

After saying that, from all of what I have heard and read, I still have a
vision in my head of Tony doing all the work with the exception of
resawing and some of the work that got his lumber to usable dimensions
and even that he did some of.

Now for the important part of this discussion. Whether a person can call
him/herself a luthier if they do not perform all of the steps. I think that
Bill Moll's point was correct in supporting the viewpoint that a "luthier"
must be thoroughly familiar and knowledgable about every aspect of their
craft.

I am leaning heavily towards not calling myself a luthier anymore,
preferring to say I am a violinmaker, or guitarmaker instrument builder.
And when asked the enevatable question "do you make them from
scratch" I reply, "no I use wood!"

I recently read "Stradivari's Genius : Five Violins, One Cello and Three Centuries of Enduring Perfection" by Toby Faber. I don't have a copy handy so I can't give you a page number or trace down his citations. But, He claims that after a certain point the scrolls on Stradivari's violins seem to come from a different "hand". Strad scolars speculate that it was his son that took over that part of the process. There is no documentation to back this up, however.

I don't think that he needed to out source the work for his instruments. He is known to have made about 700 instrument over a period of over 60 years of active building. Stradivari lived well into his ninety's and was productive up until the end. That he didn't need to doesn't mean that he didn't out source work but the documentation on it is not conclusive.

It is interresting to note that at least one of his sons worked in his shop for decades and there is no evidence that he ever produced a violin under his own name or was ever given the job of making a violin body. This implies that Stradivarius never trusted his son nor could he (or would he)convey to him his "secret" to tuning a sound box

John,

     I apologize if my remarks seemed hasty to you, but I did not make that assertion based on the fact that "someone's" book didn't mention it, but because no one's book mentions it. I didn't mean to personally "trounce" you either, but I've heard these allegations and assertions debated many times before, and I suppose my trigger slipped.

     Neither Sacconi, the Hill's, Jalovec, Henley, or Hamma makes any referance to outside workers, in fact they all, (and you may add Weisshaar to the list here), assert that the "Master's hand" is unmistakable in all extant examples, up to the point when Antonio's sons, Francesco and Omobono entered into the picture. (what a name for a kid, huh?) It was only at that point, as Mike mentions, that the work became less refined, less masterful. I also disagree with Rodger, that they could not have made so many instruments otherwise.

     Rodger's opinion, while not entirely impossible I suppose, certainly does not constitute "evidence", from a scientific, or evidentiary standpoint, and though I have great respect for him, the other scholars, and their opinions, would seem to outweigh his. I should add that, over many years Sacconi and Weisshaar, between them, had every extant instrument of Stradivari's before them for repairs, large and small, and a great deal of time and effort invested in their study. These guys got to "know" Stradivari and his working methods, as if they had sat at the work bench next to him.

     But OK, let's say that I might even concede to the POSSIBILITY that Stradivari MAY have subcontracted a part or subassembly here or there - by your indirect quote of Rodger's, Stradivari would have "kept very strict quality control". That statement, in and of itself, would indicate his complete knowledge and mastery of the craft, which was my entire point in the first place - that, once a builder has a complete understanding of all processes, materials, mechanics, etc., he may find himself NEEDING to employ others in order to be more productive - perfectly legitimate - but, on the other hand, those who choose to outsource INSTEAD of learning those aspects of the craft, certainly cheat themselves of the accomplishment, and may, in the opinion of others in the craft, not have earned the right to their clamed titles.

     End of hopefully clearing up my point to you, John, the rest of this is general.

     I went back to the "subbing out finish" thread and it's getting pretty full over there, so let's bring this subject of subcontracting, in general, over here. Additional posts in the other discussion further indicate that the majority of those who took the most umbrage at the question of "who has the right to call whom what", are seemingly those who have a relatively short time into the craft. Some reminded me of my middle son, when he was 16, exclaming his RIGHT to have a new, high dollar, sportscar, simply because he'd had driving lessons.

     OK, here comes the "snobby" and "crabby", as other were called, Bill...

     It's not OK to do whatever "feels right" if you claim to be a professional, nor is it proper to disrespect a craft that is over 300 years old by implying that it is. If you want to do this at home, as a hobby, more power to you - do what you like. But, if you intend to enter the marketplace, and compete for ever decreasing disposable dollars against pros who have been doing it for many, many years, you had better have your "stuff" together, or be prepared to get your butt handed to you on a plate.

     I have been in this business for 30 + years, (I have also had my butt handed to me on a plate occasionally), and yet, I do not presume to hold court over who gets called a "Luthier" or not... What makes a relative newcomer feel that he's qualified to hand out titles? I think the whole discussion of "titles" diminishes the discussion entirely anyway - it's about becoming thoroughly adept at a highly skilled craft, knowing every aspect of it, and becoming an accomplished artisan, (small plug)

     Just because there is no official "governing body" to dispense credentials upon us, it does not follow that anything and everything is fair game. It's simply not the reality. The realiy is that, as the marketplace becomes more congested with builders at all levels of accomplishment, Those who have not learned the craft fully and completely will eventually fail, while those who have built a solid foundation under themselves won't. It really IS that simple.

     OK... I'm finished regurgitating. Sorry to take up so much space with it.

     BillBill Moll38769.9104513889

I was watching the other thread and thought about chiming in but wasn't quite ready to. I'm with Bill on a lot of these issues. And in my humble opinion, if you're going to call yourself a luthier, you need to be well versed in all aspects concerning building a guitar. And that also includes repairing them. If you're not qualified in the repair department, you are a guitar maker. If you decide after you have dealt with certain finishes that it is harmful to your health, or you wish to increase your production and farm out your finish work, that is fine with me. The excuse "I don't have the right space to be shooting lacquer" doesn't fly. Change your finish to waterborn or varnish and learn to be the best at that finish. Bruce Sexauer's gone to varnish because he doesn't like dealing with lacquer and he's getting real money for his guitars.

Today I received a phone call from a young man asking if we were hiring any luthiers. From the conversation I found out he had done some work for a guitar manufacturer and was in the process of going to Brian Gallop's school. The first problem I have is that he didn't do his research. He didn't have a clue I was a one-man shop with no employees. The other red flag was that he was calling himself a luthier and he hasn't finished school yet. He worked in a production facility. So how does that qualify him to use the title luthier? And yes, I spoke to him for a while and gave him some ideas on who else he could call. I was very nice to him.

So yes, I have some issues with the use of the word luthier and people using it before their time. I also don't consider myself a master luthier. I would consider myself a journeyman because master insinuates that you know everything - and I'm still learning.

Lance

A couple of points in no specific order and directed at nothing in particular.

1. A luthier is "luthier n. a maker of stringed instruments, esp. those of the violin family. [French from luth, lute]

So, if you build stringed instruments, especially violins you can call yourself a luthier, whether you've built 1 or 1000. I personally don't call my self a luthier, even though I'm one of the few people around here that actually builds lutes. I'm simply an amateur guitar and lute builder. If I were making my living at it I'd be a "professional guitar and lute builder". I see no reason to further engrandise myself with overblown titles (I let the University do that).

2. David Hume and Charles Beare visit my department on occasion to borrow my mass spectometer and scanning electon microscope (as well as my graduate students!) to test varnish and glues from Stradivari and other Cremonese makers, prior to rebuilding and repairing the Stradivari instruments in their care. This includes the recently acquired 1709 Vioti Strad, probably the most original Stradivarius violin (Yes I've handled it and my wife has played it!). No, there was nothing special about the varnish, just the bog standard stuff available at the time, and yes probably bought in. And David, one of the finest violin makers of his generation, and one of the only people who actually gets to take Strads apart, rather than just read or write books about them, believes that he sees more than one pair of hands at work.

Colin



Colin S38770.2446875

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

I've been kind of reading these threads too.

Frankly, there is a bit of the old arguement about "How many angels will fit on the pont of a pin" here. So much is personal opinion. So much cannot have a clear answer.

I come from a jewelry background. One of my heroes was a jeweler in the latter part of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th. He is probably best known as maker of the Faberge Easter Eggs. The problem is that Peter Carl Faberge didn't make them. His workmen (read: master craftsmen) did. This fact is well established and yet no one suggests that they could have been produced without him. He was deisgned and passed final judgement as to whether or not the workmanship was up to standards. No one questions that he was an artist.

I honestly think the same is true with luthery. One can be thoroghly familiar with all aspects of a craft, as Faberge was, without performing them. Would A Strad violin be a Strad without Stradivari's input? Most likely , no. To me, this is the important distinction. He performed those operations or directly oversaw those operations that made the violin or cello etc uniquely his. The same as with Faberge. Although he didn't cut a stone or pound out gold sheet, his house's work is distinctive and wouldn't be the same without him.

Just my 2 cents.

Steve

I should probably not be posting about this as my English skill is hindering me from expressing myself as easily and clearly as I would like, but I can't seem to help myself so here I go...

Bill, I agree with your point that a professional should do everything he can to learn as much about every aspect of the craft as he can, to get his "stuff together", and not do whatever because he "feels like it".   I think it is important to be do all you can to learn as much as possible about every aspect of the craft and not cut corners; how else are you going to know all there is to know about it? I have the deepest respect for the great builders before me and I'm eternally happy that some of the ones living today are willing to share their knowledge with the the rest of us, thank you thank you thank you!

I am one of those who have a relative short time into this craft (6 years), however I make my own fingerboards, kerfed linings, inlays, do some resawing, bindings and purflings. I do all my finishing and I have never bought a pre made "luthier jig" or template and of course I design my own instruments. I am just too curious about the whole process not to try to learn as much as I can, not because I feel I must! My instruments improve all the time, but they take forever to make. I don't care, all I do is the best I can with every step and they become what they become and I'm happy.

I don't spend my time pondering if any of this makes me a Luthier or not. I know I'm not a professional (although I do sell an occasional instrument), but that does not mean I can't have a professional attitude. Like I said, for me it is natural to learn as much as I can about every aspect of the craft by doing, at least for now, as much of everything as possible by myself.

The point is; that's just me! What I reacted to in the other thread was whether you were worthy of being titled "Luthier" when you don't do this or that step. The title thing is idea is nothing new, it's what guilds were all about. To me, once you start thinking like that it's all about hierarchy, power and protectionism and it gives me the creeps! I agree with you that "...whole discussion of "titles" diminishes the discussion entirely anyway.", but I don't think the concept is something to be taken lightly.

By the way, I'm amused if I'm one of those who sounded like your 16 year old son; I find the thought rather comical as I just turned 40 and in my day job people rely on me to design buildings that they will spend millions of $'s on, my family rely on me to provide a house and food on the table, my 2 kids (3, come April) expect me to drive them to school, horse back riding, fiddle practice, you name it, be DA MAN so I can spend every remaining waking moment (until 1.30 in the morning usually) in some way related to building instruments. I bet I'm not unique in any way. I'm glad that my opinions apparently make me sound so young, Lord knows I feel like I'm 60 sometimes!

_________________
Rian Gitar og Mandolin

     Thanks for not taking my comments the wrong way guys. After posting them, I began to get concerned about that.

     Arnt, I was addressing no specific post, and no one in particular with that analogy, only what seems to be an increasingly general mindset that anyone, at any given level of accomplishment, may assume a title that implies a thorough and complete understanding of the craft.

     The fact of the matter is that anyone MAY call themselves anything they wish - people do it all of the time. But if we each honestly appraise our own situation, most of us, myself included, begin to focus more on further learning as opposed to past accomplishments.

     Personally? I tell people that I "make sawdust". I'll continue to do what I do to the best of my ability until I keel over at my bench, and let history, and others, decide what level of merit, or titles, I deserved. (I can however, tell you what title my Wife will vote for)

     Bill

[QUOTE=Bill Moll] assume a title that implies a thorough and complete understanding of the craft.
     Bill[/QUOTE]

I think that this is the source of mis-understanding. Layman and amateurs will use a term differently than those skilled in a certain area. Luthierie could mean "someone who builds ore repairs stringed musical instruments." There is no implied skill level. On the other hand, it could mean "someone who is an expert in building and repairing stringed musical instruments." This states that the luthier is an expert.   When an amateur says "I'm a luthier", I don't think that they are trying to imply that they are masters of the craft. Only that they engage in lutherie.

Bill, Lance, Sylvan, and others, have spent a significant fraction of their lives learning their craft. They deserve some recognition for that. I wish "luthier" were reserved for those who have earned it, but words are used the way people use them.