OK Rich. I have compiled pertinent clips taken from the first topic and this one, arranged them as a conversation in chronological order, in order to help see how we got here - from there. This is the way things went – in my opinion:
You: In order to get the cleanest, purest tone, it's important for the fingertip to cover the string in the right area and for it to properly stop the note on the fingerboard--if the fingertip doesn't contact the string properly, the tone is weak and aenemic.
Me: I am a firm believer in not pressing the string all the way to the fingerboard. NOT NEEDED. I use enough pressure to stop the string - andit doesn't require much pressure.In fact, Iuse more pressure than I really need to. ButI hardly ever press the string to the fingerboard. IMO - wasted energy.
You: While it is possible to get a sound without contacting the fingerboard, that does not mean that is the ideal. I would agree that too much pressure is just that—too much pressure, and there’s no advantage to pushing the fingers down with any more force than is necessary. However, if contact with the board was so superfluous, the fingerboard would not be necessary.
Me: IMO - that is not a valid argument. I'm not going to declare that my fingers "NEVER - EVER" touch the fingerboard - they do. But my habit and focus is on thedesire to not use any more pressure than necessary to note the string. It works more often than not. Andif it can be demonstrated that a fiddle can be played without pressing the strings to the fingerboard (and I do) - then fingerboards have been proven to be superfluous (not necessary). But that doesn't mean they wouldn't serve a valuable purpose (creating a "need" in the mind of some), only that they are not technically required to note a string on the instrument. I know - that is extreme - but true. It could be done. Whether people would buy it or not is irrelevant to thatissue.
You: There is no part on the violin that is unnecessary.
Me: Not true. The scroll is not necessary. The f holes are not necessary. The points of the C bout are not necessary. Wooden pegs are not necessary. A wooden body is not necessary. Gut strings are not necessary. Awooden tailpiece is not necessary.
You: A wooden body is important if you're trying to make something that actually sounds like a violin. Carbon fiber violins are proof enough that alternative materials do not yield favorable results.
And here was the first mention of a carbon fiber violin. You brought it up.
And your comment - "if you're trying to make something that actually sounds like a violin" was the reason I offered a sample of how a carbon fiber violin sounds on recordings that were made when played alongside a wooden violin. Yes, the video was made to favorably demonstrate how well the carbon fiber violin performs by someone who makes them. And yes, he could have been a dishonest cheat and just cooked up a hoax – just to sell a few more of his carbon fiber violins (but is that what you really think?). He would have also probably known that doing so would ruin his reputation and business when the truth was discovered. …they are still in business – 10 years later.
The age of the video is irrelevant. But it does help re-enforce my point about doing a google search to see how many businesses are currently making and selling them - successfully. I never once said they were replacing wooden instruments in the market place. …or that they should. …or that wooden instruments we outdated. No, any of that would be silly.
Did you watch the other video I posted? …of Anna Elizabeth doing a review of her newGlasser Violin that she bought? Watch it – then you can watch her 1 year update. She doesn’t make violins nor does she sell them. She plays them and uses them as a professional musician and music teacher.
Now, I never said that a violin without a scroll was better that a violin with a scroll. I said the scroll was not "necessary"on an instrument that would be played and called a violin. A violin without a scroll is still a violin. I named off several things like that. And wood was another one of those things that I said is not "necessary". And that is all I have been saying - from the beginning of all this silliness until now.I made no mention of tonal qualities, comparisons, or disproving anything about traditional violin making. I made a simple statement. I'm not sure where this other stuff is coming from.
And now you have added a number of other things that are not wood- besides carbon fiber - that could be used to build a violin.So, if you say these are materials that can be used to make a violin, then I will say that a violin made from those materials could be played and would also be called a violin.
Perhaps …we do agree. Sure sounds like it - at least on this one point.
