198

PERIOD ofADJUSTMENT

MODERN AND BAROQUE COMPARISONS

(Figure 1) shows a violin set up in the modern style.The stop length is 195mm. The neck length is 130mmfrom the top nut to the belly edge. The neck is set6mm above the belly edge and the fingerboard edgethickness is 5mm, making a total of 11mm. The fin-gerboard curve is 41mm. The elevation of the neckand fingerboard is 27mm If all of these measure-ments are accurate, when the neck is set, the neckangle and the top nut position find themselves. Andallowing for some minor variations the same willapply to any modern or antique violin set up inthis way.

The tailpiece is of the modern variety. The tail gut

passes through the end of the tailpiece over a bot-tom nut or saddle that is 3.5mm high. The stringsare usually set about 3.5mm to 5.25mm above theboard. Together these factors fix the string anglesas they pass over the bridge.

If we then make a Baroque violin using similarmeasurements, we achieve the result illustrated in(Figure 2). The stop and neck lengths are the sameas the modern violin: 195mm and 130mm respec-tively. The edge height of the board at the top nutis 5mm. The wedge thickens to 11mm above the bel-ly edge, virtually the same as the modern board. Theboard curve is also the same. The elevation is thesame. Consequently, if all these measurements are

Although the basic violin set up has changed little from Baroquetimes, many of its parts have altered radically. In the second oftwo articles, ROGER HARGRAVE tracks the development of

strings, fingerboards and the neck root.

FIGURE 1: A violinsetup in the modernstyle

FIGURE 1: A violinsetup in the modernstyle

FIGURE 2: TheBarouque violin set-up

There are differences between the original article and this script. They depend on copyright issues.

199accurate, the neck angle and the top nut positionmust also be the same or very similar (Figure 3).

BAROQUE TAILPIECES varied considerably, fromflat inlaid maple to slightly arched solid ebony. How-ever, in most cases the tail gut passed over a bottomnut or saddle that was initially no higher than thebelly edge. The gut entered the tailpiece from be-low, effectively lifting the tailpiece to the height ofthe modern saddle. Making and mounting a Baroquetailpiece in this way creates a string angle at thebridge that is entirely similar to the modern an-gle.'

Apart from allowing the bow to do its work, thecombined neck and fingerboard angle (or ̀ elevation)is critical because it establishes the angle of thestrings as they pass over the bridge. This angle cre-ates the downward pressure on the bridge that inturn will either generate or mute the instrument'ssound. Although opinion about the degree of thisangle will vary from maker to maker, I believe thatwithin normal parameters, the Baroque string an-gle was more or less identical to that of the mod-ern violin.2

So if, as I am now suggesting, there were no seri-ous differences between the basic set up of Baroqueand modern violins, it is necessary to explain howand why so many drastic alterations were made.

STRING DEVELOPMENT

The most obvious changes occurred as a result ofimprovements in string quality. From the time ofAndrea Amati to the present day, advances in stringtechnology have always preceded improvements inplaying, composition and instrument design. As withother technologies, advances in string technologymoved swiftly, generally carried by musicians,who were often international travellers. Althoughplain gut strings were reasonably successful in theupper registers, and continued to be used for the vi-olin until the second half of the 20th century, prob-lems occurred in the lower ranges. The only avail-able bass strings were either excessively thick or ex-tremely long. Several members of the lute familyutilised the option of long, thin bass strings, but thiswas not a practical solution for instruments of theviolin family.

From several sources, we are informed that at leastsome early violins had only three strings. Count Co-zio di Salabue mentions one such violin by AndreaAmati, and it is possible that the c.1566 Amati celloknown as ̀ The King' also had three strings. This maywell have been because both players and makers ex-perienced difficulties with the excessive weight andthickness of the earliest pure gut bass strings. In re-lation to their length, they were difficult to bow, re-quiring excessive pressure, which in turn createdproblems with intonation.

On a related note, a lot has been said about thegradual increase in pressure on the modern bridge,but it is possible that the heavier gut strings of ear-

FIGURE 3 Superimposing Figure1 on Figure 2 shows the basicsimilari between modern andBaroque violins

200lier times, coupled with the need to increase bowpressure, actually placed a greater load on the Baroquebridge. Although modern strings may be tuned to aslightly higher pitch, which may increase bridgepressure, this is unlikely to have raised the load tothe level of the earliest Baroque bridges. More-over, modern strings are generally much thinner:they vibrate more easily and they require less bowpressure, especially when a modern bow is beingused.

THE LIMITATIONS of these early gut strings obvi-ously limited the repertoire. They were probably themain reason why Andrea Amati designed at least twosizes of violin, two of viola, and one very large cel-lo. It seems likely that the repertoire was split be-tween alto and tenor instruments, possibly using thesame tuning. From the beginning, cellos appear tohave caused particular problems and in view of whatfollowed, Andrea Amati may have made two or moresizes of cello. Possibly to help alleviate problemscaused by pure gut bass strings, Andrea's two sons,Antonio and Hieronymus Amati, did many experi-ments. This resulted in a large variety of instruments,especially cello related instruments, with differingstring numbers, string lengths and body sizes. How-ever, after the introduction of woven gut and ulti-mately metal wound gut strings, it eventually be-came possible to provide the entire violin family withserviceable bass strings.

Compared with the age-old tradition of using gutstrings for musical instruments, the technologyfor creating metal strings is almost new. Neverthe-less, as early as the 15th century, harpsichords andrelated instruments were using metal strings. Themaking of fine wire from different metals had beenintroduced into Europe several centuries earlier,probably from Persia. From the 16th century on-wards, alloys of gold, silver, copper and iron were inuse for stringing an assortment of instruments. Doc-umentary evidence suggests that violins were strungwith metal before 1600, but for whatever reason thepractice fell out of favour. In spite of this, before thethird quarter of the 17th century, the only practicalchoice for instruments of the violin family was the

pure gut string.Metal wound strings were probably introduced in

the second half of the 17th century. As a result, bythe early 18th century, of the original five instru-ments designed by Andrea Amati, only two remainedin the Cremonese catalogue. These were the largerviolin and the smaller viola, the larger cello havingbeen replaced by a smaller, more manageable de-sign. There can be no doubt that these changes tothe violin family were directly related to improve-ments in string technology.

THE EFFECT OF METAL WOUND STRINGSON BAROQUE FINGERBOARDS

As far as I am aware, there is only one known unal-tered instrument of the violin family from the ear-liest period of violin making. It is the 1613 'piccolo'violin by Antonio and Hieronymus Amati. This in-strument was probably tuned a 3rd, 4th, or possiblyeven an octave above the violin. It has a tailpieceand fingerboard fashioned from maple with match-ing crisscross inlay. This inlay is made from the samethree ply purfling that the maker inserted aroundthe back and belly edges.

There are also three violas in the Ashmolean Mu-seum in Oxford that have tailpieces finished in a sim-ilar manner. They were made by Andrea Amati in1574, by Hieronymus and Antonio Amati in 1592, andby Gasparo da Salo (Brescia) in the late 16th centu-ry. It seems certain that their inlaid fingerboards areeither early or later replacements. Although the Gas-paro viola is also said to have its original board,the inlay is made of different material from that inthe instrument's body, indicating that it is probablyan early replacement. It seems likely that the tail-pieces were spared because they continued to be use-ful even after their matching fingerboards had beenreplaced.

Advances in string technologyhave always preceded improvements

in playing

201In addition, several contemporary paintings depictsimilar inlaid fingerboards, tailpieces or both. Twotypical examples are

The Boy Violinist (1626) by Hendrick ter Brugghenand Aminta's Lament (1614-15) by BartolomeoCavarozzi. There is even a paper template in theStradivari Museum in Cremona.

From the onset of the Baroque revival, these in-struments were copied by enthusiastic makers un-til their inlaid fingerboards and tailpieces becamethe enduring image of the Baroque violin. However,although it seems likely that the earliest Cremoneseand Brescian instruments would have been fittedwith inlaid fingerboards similar to the 'piccolo' violin,once the metal wound string was introducedaround 1660, such fingerboards were almost cer-tainly abandoned or replaced with considerable haste.

FOR PLAYERS, THESE new metal wound stringswere a tremendous evolutionary step forward, butfor makers they caused considerable problems. Met-al string windings rapidly eroded both the softermaple fingerboards and their inlays. In Italy this de-velopment led to the introduction of hardwood ve-neers. The 1690 tenor viola by Antonio Stradivariknown as the'Medici' has a fingerboard covered witha hardwood veneer, and is also inlaid with ivory.Both of these are capable of withstanding the abra-sive action of metal wound strings. The two Stain-er violins that retain their original necks (1668 and1679) referenced in the previous article have fin-gerboards veneered with ebony. Both are similar tothe surviving tenor violas by Andrea Guarneri madein 1664. Although the Andrea Guarneri neck is orig-inal, at some time this neck was removed and refit-ted. Consequently, it is possible that the present fin-gerboard is an early replacement. This viola is nowhoused in the National Music Museum in Vermillion,South Dakota.

Conversely, countries like the Netherlands andEngland had access to supplies of ebony via theircolonies. Therefore, although they continued to usewedge shaped fingerboards, with the advent of themetal wound string, these boards were now mainlyfashioned from solid ebony. Both systems provid-

ed simple practical solutions to the problem of woundstrings, but the introduction of solid ebony finger-boards became the first phase in the next evolu-tionary process.

THE BAROQUE NECK ROOT

Cremonese Baroque necks were originally buttedagainst the top rib and fixed with glue and forgediron nails. The fuller curvature of the neck root pro-vided additional structural strength, as did the thick-er wedge shaped fingerboard. In contrast, the mod-ern method of setting the neck deep into the topblock made it possible to remove more wood fromthe neck root without compromising its strength. Inturn, this created space for the thumb to travel fur-ther up the neck, providing easier access to the high-er positions. The gradual introduction of solid ebonyboards with their inherent rigidity also strength-ened the neck, allowing further removal of woodfrom the root. However, although this developmentwas distinctly helpful, it was a bonus rather than anecessity.

The introduction of metal wound strings creat-ed possibilities that revolutionised violin playing. Intheir 1902 publication Antonio Stradivari: His Lifeand Work, the Hills state the following:

Before 1700 the available repertoire and the fact thatCremonese and other makers were producing sev-eral sizes of instrument, made reaching beyondthe fourth position largely unnecessary. But withthe advent of the metal wound string, it was not longbefore some players began pushing boundaries. Al-though the music of Vivaldi occasionally reaches thefifth position, the violinist Pietro Locatelli, knownas 'the father of virtuosity', was stretching a longway beyond, apparently to the 22nd position (wher-ever that is).

Although we do not know who made the instrumenthe was using, Locatelli must have been doing this ona Baroque neck, somehow circumnavigating thethicker root. Undoubtedly, in those days this kindof virtuosity was rare, but Locatelli's must have hadimitators, and certainly by the second half of the18th century there were an increasing number of

202virtuoso players, especially of the French school.Some time later, even the great Nicolo Paganini wasapparently undaunted by the thick Baroque styleneck root on his beloved 1743'Cannon' Guarneri'delGesu

The truth is that long before Baroque necks werereplaced on a large scale, players were already reach-ing far beyond the third and fourth positions. Andalthough each stage in the development of the mod-ern neck and fingerboard offered advantages, as Lo-catelli, Paganini and others demonstrated, the shapeof the neck root was not necessarily a hindrance tovirtuosity. All of this indicates that Baroque neckswere not replaced simply to alter the shape of neckroots. Reaching the higher positions may have beeneasier for players as a result, but it is unlikely thatvirtuosos' demands were the primary reason whythese changes were introduced.

THE INTRODUCTIONOF THE MODERN SYSTEM

If, as I have surmised, thicker neck roots were nota hindrance for early virtuoso players; if neck andfingerboard angles (elevations) were much the same;if the neck length was of little consequence or wasalready identical to most modern violins; and ifthe angle of the strings over the bridge was basical-ly the same, then why were Baroque necks so sys-tematically replaced? Apart from the introductionof new materials such as metal strings and ebony, itseems likely that the answer lies in the gradual emer-gence of a new profession that of the restorer orrepairer of violins.

Any neck, whether Baroque or modern, will even-tually become lower with the passage of time. Ini-tially, as with the'Medici' tenor viola (see Figure 5in the previous article), the fingerboard could bemodified to compensate for this shallower angle.However, if for some reason a Baroque neck neededto be replaced or reset, it was the start of a long anddifficult process.

In the past, in the various towns and cities of Eu-rope, several methods had been used to attach Baroque

necks. Most of these involved nails or screws, or acombined neck and top-block (Figure 4). A modernneck can be removed and replaced without openingthe main body of the instrument. However, to re-move a Baroque neck it was necessary to remove thewedged fingerboard, remove the belly, remove orcut through the iron nails or screws, and occasion-ally even remove the top block. Although this processwas relatively simple, the process of refitting the old(or new) neck was a different proposition.

THE COMPARATIVE EASE with which Baroque vi-olins could be assembled was the secret beauty ofthe Baroque system. Its downfall was its virtual ir-reversibility. Reassembling or replacing a Baroqueneck is exceptionally stressful. All the various an-gles, tilts and directions must be addressed and thenails reinserted with the belly (and possibly eventhe back) off the instrument, since it is impossibleto insert the nails with the belly in place. And then,around the beginning of the 19th century, somebright spark came up with the idea of grafting a newneck into the pegbox, fitting a new top block andmortising the neck through the ribs into this newtop block. This process was probably developed whenone or more broken necks required repair work,rather than simply raising a low elevation.

During Stradivari's lifetime no violin playerwent beyond the third or fourth position... Itwas only when players recognised the greaterscope afforded them for more varied methodsof execution by extending the compass ofthe instrument, that the makers realised thenecessity of adapting the neck and fingerboardto the altered circumstances, thus facilitatingthe shifting into higher positions.

Within normal parameters,the Baroque string angle wasmore or less identical to thatof the modern violin

203Readers might be forgiven for thinking

that grafting a new neck would be a far moredifficult process than simply refitting aBaroque neck and fingerboard, but they wouldbe wrong. Refitting a Baroque neck and fin-gerboard is a seriously difficult job.

Apart from making repairs of this na-ture so much easier, this new idea producedlong term rewards that quickly became ob-vious. In particular, this solution made allfuture repairs much easier. And once thisprocess had begun, it is not difficult to seewhy this method of repairing antique vio-lins rapidly developed into the modern sys-tem of construction. It is also the reason whythe old systems were so quickly forgotten.Nevertheless, although this was a radical de-parture from the ancient methods of con-struction, it was still just another stage in the evo-lutionary process.

ONCE AGAIN, PROCEDURES that were already be-ing applied in different places and on different in-struments were simply adapted and adopted. Cer-tainly, construction techniques employed by nonCremonese makers helped to pave the way for thesechanges. For example, various instruments of Ger-man or Austrian origin had their necks set throughthe ribs and into the top block without nails or screwsto hold them. Meanwhile, although still nailing andgluing their necks to the ribs, several makers werealready raising the neck root several millimetresabove the belly edge. This latter development even-tually led to the modern style solid ebony finger-board replacing the wedge.

Although the process of mortising the neck hadancient precedents, once mortising the neck intothe top block became the basic method of construction,a line was crossed.

Throughout Europe, instrument makers switchedfrom aligning the body and soundholes to the neck,to aligning the neck to the soundholes and body. Al-though this method had no discernible effect uponthe violin's overall function, this simple systemchange subtly altered the appearance of the entireviolin family, and incidentally the path of violin ex-

pertise (for more details on this, see my article 'TheCremonese Key to Expertise' in the June 2011 issueof The Strad).

In spite of this significant new development, mak-ers were still required to work within the parame-ters that govern the successful construction and setup of any violin, be it Baroque or modern. Clearlythere are differences, but they are largely differ-ences of approach rather than fundamental differ-ences in the instrument's concept. Moreover, al-though all violin makers strive to achieve a bettersound in the instruments that they service or build,as far as I can ascertain, in the entire history of theviolin family no one has ever taken an active deci-sion to alter these instruments in any radical waysimply to improve their power or their tone. Indeed,in this respect I am not totally convinced that themodern set up is a genuine improvement. It mayhave improved playability, and it certainly solveda few repair headaches, but using high quality mod-ern strings I have heard several 'Baroque' instru-ments that can match the carrying power and tonalqualities of similar instruments, set up in the mod-ern way.

I have not touched upon the effect of overall weight,bass bars, bridge designs, soundposts, chin rests andshoulder rests, all of which must exert their influ-

FIGURE 4a The classicalCremonese method ofneck fitting

FIGURE 4b A variation of amethod using wedges,once popular in Germany

FIGURE 4c A differentmethod of neck-fitting fora viola da gamba

204

ence. Nor have I said a great deal about the devel-opment of strings. This is in itself the subject for abook. But as I see it, both makers and players arefaced with a simple question: just how authenticdo we want to be? The so called 'Baroque period'covers two and a half centuries. If musicians wish toplay period music on period instruments, will theyrequire several instruments, to cover each place andperiod? And will they also require several sizes ofviolin, viola and cello to cover the various periodsbefore 1700? If so, is the necessary historical evi-

dence actually available to make such copies? Anddo we really want to go back to those days when gutbass strings were so thick and unwieldy that theywere barely playable? Or are we prepared to use thebest wound gut strings of our modern era on a Baroqueset up, knowing that strings of the 16th, 17th and18th centuries were never as good?

1 Assuming the neck was fitted at the same angle, theshorter necks of Stradivari and others would have re-quired a wedge shaped board with a greater angle. in turn,this would have resulted in a slightly steeper string angleover the bridge.

Z Because of the need to allow more clearance for thickerBaroque strings, this angle may even have been slightlyhigher.

The detail of this c.1760 English pochette, housed at the Ash-molean Museum in Oxford, UK, illustrates both a solid ebonyfingerboard with a wedge shape, and a fingerboard that israised above the belly edge

No one has ever decided toalter these instruments in aradical way simply toimprove their power or tone

The neck of this1868 Enrico Cerutiviolin is fixed to thetop block with ascrew, in a late vari-ation of the Cre-monese method