Kitabı oku: «George Gemünder's Progress in Violin Making», sayfa 3

PREFACE

It is not my intention to unfold in this work my knowledge of the structure of violins; for the present generation would not thank me for doing so. In the treatise itself will be found the reasons why I have not set forth that knowledge. Since the death of the celebrated old Italian violin makers, many works have been put forth, in which we find not only in what manner those famous masters varnished their violins, but also prescriptions even, of theorists who usually know nothing about the practice, or mathematical principles thereof. Abundant theories are to be found in all such works, but they are good only for those who have little or no knowledge of violin making. If the science of the celebrated Italian masters could really have been found in these works, the experiments made by European investigators would not have been entirely unsuccessful.

In George Hart's interesting book, "The Violin," a comparative illustration may be found of the workmanship of all violin makers with whom he became acquainted, either personally or by history, and by whose productions he obtained his practical knowledge, which comparisons are generally good, but not entirely free from error. This compilation of experiences is highly interesting for all those who take an interest in violins. The treatises which will be found below have reference simply to the art of making violins, to violin players and their critics, the information contained in which has for the most part never hitherto been made public.

Through these scientific explanations a better judgment will be awakened, which will tend to show how, in consequence of mistakes and ignorance in regard to violins and violin makers, false ideas arise.

PROGRESS OF THE STRUCTURE OF VIOLINS – THEIR CRITICS

In 1845 I became personally acquainted with Ole Bull, at Vuillaume's, in Paris, where I then had my first opportunity of hearing and admiring an artist on the violin. I learned then to appreciate the beauty of both arts, and the sublimity of attainment in either to be a violin virtuoso or a perfect violin maker. The latter art engaged my whole attention, and it was my greatest aim to reach to the highest point of perfection therein.

I also found that Ole Bull took special interest in the different forms of violins, and I remember that as early as 1841, at which time I worked at Pesth, my employer made the so-called "Ole Bull's bass-bars" in violins, the ideas of Ole Bull concerning violins then being accepted as authority. Ole Bull subsequently made many experiments regarding tone, especially upon new violins, in order to reproduce the same character of tone, then considered lost, peculiar to the Italian instruments. Knowing that all experiments made since the death of the celebrated Italian masters had proven unsuccessful, he undertook to construct a violin of very old wood, but was soon convinced that he had not obtained better results than others; he therefore decided the project to be an impossibility, and having arrived at this decision, his opinion was generally conceded to. Since then, doubtless, he found out that to make a violin was a more difficult task, for him, than to play on one. As a virtuoso, however, he obtained a celebrity which will make his name immortal, and as he was an artist in his own peculiar way, his name will live forever in the memory of men. Nature has endowed many men with rare gifts, each one possessing a talent peculiar to himself: but we know how long it requires to perfect one's self in any given art, and it therefore cannot be expected that a great violin virtuoso should at the same time be proficient in the art of violin making, the two arts being totally different. It is, however, generally believed that the assertion of Ole Bull had more weight with many violin players and amateurs than the most adequate knowledge of a violin maker. I admit that Ole Bull had some experience with violins, but had he obtained sufficient knowledge he would have easily understood that many of his ideas were not based upon principles which he thought had remained secret to all investigators on the subject, as the greatest authorities have acknowledged the tone in George Gemünder's violins to be of the same quality as that characteristic of the best Italian instruments.

This proves that violins are judged the best when they are mistaken for Italian instruments and prejudice only is the actuating motive when the declaration follows that the instrument is a new violin. If, therefore, the knowledge of tone could have proved more reliable, prejudice would not, in many cases, have appeared so severe, and embodied itself so as to degenerate into fanaticism.

Violins made of healthy wood and according to the rule can never lose their tone. It is, however, something different if they are carelessly treated.

When an Italian violin, which lay untouched in concealment for fifty years, was shown to Wieniawski at the Russian court, and he was asked what he thought of it, he said, after trying it: "The violin has a bad tone." "Well," said the Emperor, "let us put it back in its old place. If it had been good I should have presented you with it." Wieniawski, greatly surprised, replied: "Oh, when I play upon it it will regain its tone." Here vanity and ignorance are shown at once; for if that artist had had any knowledge of violins, he must have known that the violin was not in good order, and that it was first necessary to have it put in a good condition by a professional repairer; but instead of making such a proposal, he thought to make an impression by his renown, and that he would improve it by playing upon it.

I mention this because it contains two points: firstly, because, especially here in America, great stress is laid upon the opinions of such artists, but it proves that artists do not always have a knowledge sufficient to enable them to give a correct judgment of violins; secondly, if this violin had been new, many would have thought that it was made of chemically prepared wood. A violin, however, of such defective wood, can never give a good tone; because the life is taken out of it when it is made. If such artists would make themselves acquainted with a professional violin maker, many of them would get more light on this matter, but since they consider themselves to be authorities on the subject, there is very little prospect of visible progress. It is, therefore, a rarity when an artist is found who is able to judge of the quality of tone, whether the wood is chemically prepared or not, and although this is easily to be distinguished by the practiced ear, a peculiar experience is required for it nevertheless. Many, however, believe that he who plays the violin to perfection, and especially the player of renown, must be acknowledged as a judge of tone. I admit that many violin players are judges of tone, but not beyond a certain degree, as the greater number of them hear their own instruments only and are taken with them; but he who possesses a feeling of tone, and into whose hands violins of all shapes and qualities are falling, whereby he learns to distinguish the different characters of tone, is to be considered a connoisseur of tone; he must, however, possess some knowledge of playing, although it is not necessary for him to be a solo player, for with how many solo players have I become acquainted who have no more judgment of tone than children.

For musicians and solo players it is very difficult to find out how far the tone of a violin reaches. Many a player, having no experience in this regard, plays in concerts on a violin which sounds like an echo, but if the instrument is called Stradivarius or Guarnerius and $3,000 has been paid for it, and besides it has a "history" attached to it, then, verily, it must sound. The critic, however, does not blame the violin, but the player, for weakness of tone, and in that respect he is right.

For solo players who still use such echoing violins in concerts, it would be of the greatest importance to make themselves acquainted with the quality of tone which is fit for concerts, for most Italian violins which are used in concerts prove either too old or of too thin wood; but most players are accustomed to the fine, tender, echoing tone to a degree that the true concert tone appears quite strange to them.

Thus, violins of chemically prepared wood will never do for concerts, and it is a great mistake to believe that such violins have ever produced as good a tone as good Italian violins do. Ignorance and self interest have launched this untruth into the world. For violins made of such wood produce short vibrations – a muffled color of tone similar to that of impaired Italian instruments. Vuillaume put all the world in commotion with his violins of chemically prepared wood, and all the world sang hosannas. But when it was found that such instruments kept this tone only a short time, there arose a general prejudice against new violins and no one would play on them.

In order to remove all such ideas and prejudices I can safely assert that violins of a free, high, clear and powerful character of tone, with a quality which thrills the heart – such tone as my instruments produce, and which qualities are now seldom found in the best Italian violins – can never be obtained by any artificial preparation of the wood, but only by way of science according to acoustic principles.

Of course it is the wood more than anything else which is to be taken into consideration; for without the right sort of wood all science will be unavailing, and vice versa. Many violin makers can get the best wood, but where there is no talent applied in the construction, nothing very good can come forth.

Of all productions of art, the violin is the most difficult to judge, and I have nearer illustrated the different characters of tone which violins produce, and tried to make these things more comprehensible, in order that this medley of opinions and judgments which have been given may be put in a clearer light.

I was highly astonished at the manner in which my "Emperor" violin ("Kaiser" violin) was judged, which was sent to the Exhibition of Vienna three weeks after it had been finished. The violin had attracted not only many admirers, but also a great number of gazers who have no idea of a violin, and who stared at it only on account of its price.

Thus, the New York Staats Zeitung had a correspondent in Vienna, who also stared at the violin from the same reason. His ignorance, which he exposed in his correspondence to the newspaper which he represented, led him to make the following remark, which was published on the 27th of June, 1873, and runs as follows: "From Salzburg several violins, mostly the former property of Mozart and Beethoven, were sent, and the one which Beethoven owned was made by Hellmer, at Prague, in 1737, as was noted on the label, (saleable for 200 Florins,) while for a Gemünder violin in the American division of the Industrial Palace, $10,000 (!) are asked. Of course, everybody laughs at the simpleton who believes this is the only curiosity of the kind, and thinks he can obtain such a fabulous price for it. The Commission that for this time has made us very ridiculous with our 'Go ahead,' should remove that label as soon as possible, that one of the exhibitors may not become a public laughing stock." But that writer soon found how much this violin was admired; he learned to see that it was the only curiosity of the kind, in fact, for soon afterward I read again in the Sontag's Staats Zeitung that "the violin was admired very much."

This violin was exhibited by me for the purpose of proving to the world that I can make violins that have the tone which has been sought for a long time since the death of the celebrated Italian masters, since which all attempts have miscarried, and I confirmed this fact in a circular added to it.

But what was the result? It was not believed. In the Exhibition of Vienna my violin was mistaken for a genuine Cremonese violin, not only for its tone, but for its outer appearance, which was so striking an imitation according to Joseph Guarnerius, that a newspaper of Vienna made the observation: "George Gemünder cannot make us Germans believe that the violin sent by him is new; a bold Yankee only can put his name in a genuine instrument, in order to make himself renowned!"

Although this was the highest prize which a violin maker had ever obtained, it was no advantage either for me or the public; for the art of violin making was not furthered by it, but rather still more impaired by the correspondence of the Staats Zeitung and the New York Bellestristic Journal. The latter writes as follows: "S. F., Pittsburg. – G. is a pupil of Vuilliaume; his violins are much demanded, but their prices are so high that purchasers are frightened!"

Thirty years ago I sold violins at from $50 to $75; ten years ago I sold violins at from $100 to $300; now I sell them at $100 and upwards; and violin makers here and in Europe ask the same prices. Nay, amateurs who do best in their ignorance, ask still higher prices. Wherein, therefore, do we find that which frightens the purchasers? The effrontery of writers who make such statements as the above will bring them no honor.

Many may still remember that I had determined to send six violins of different forms, copies of the best old master-violins, to the Vienna Exhibition, and intended myself to take the matter in hand, but, owing to an accident, I was compelled to give up this intention. In consequence, I resolved to send only one violin. To select one of them, artists such as Wollenhaupt, Dr. Damrosch, Carl Feinninger and others were consulted, but they differed in their opinions, which may be taken as a proof that the instruments were very much alike in character; they are also witnesses of the fact that I made them. In order to call attention to the one selected, I noted the price "ten thousand dollars!" Nobody, however, was charged to dispose of it, although three thousand dollars were offered.

The circumstances connected with the construction of this violin gives it more than an ordinary interest. Ridicule and praise in the highest degree are interwoven with its history; therefore, it has been hitherto the most interesting new violin in this century. Why I could not be its representative and had to leave it to fate can be learned from what I have already written about it, and how I have judged every thing connected with it. I was, however, sure of one fact, namely, that it would be acknowledged as a production of art. The admission must then be made, and the claim is amply justified by facts, that, as new violins are frequently mistaken for genuine Italian instruments, even when most particular attention is given to the varnish, the art of violin making must no longer be considered as a lost one.

May the foregoing satisfy all doubters and those who have lately, especially in America, written about the lost art of varnish and tone, and may it cause them in future to refrain from investigating into the so called lost arts. He who would give a scientific explanation of this art and be a critic, must be thoroughly acquainted with it.