Intersections of Music and Science in Experimental Violins of the Nineteenth Century Sarah M

Home , Arpeggione, Bass bar, Cellone, Echo, Guarneri, Nicolas Lupot

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2013 Intersections of Music and Science in Experimental Violins of the Nineteenth Century Sarah M. Gilbert

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF MUSIC

INTERSECTIONS OF MUSIC AND SCIENCE IN

EXPERIMENTAL VIOLINS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

SARAH M. GILBERT

A thesis submitted to the College of Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Music

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2013

Sarah M. Gilbert defended this thesis on March 27, 2013.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Douglass Seaton

Professor Directing Thesis

Michael Broyles

Committee Member

Benjamin Sung

Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the faculty of the College of Music for providing me with the Curtis Mayes Orpheus Grant, which allowed me to research experimental violins at the National Music Museum in Vermillion, South Dakota, in the summer of 2012. I would also like to thank the staff of the National Music Museum, especially Arian Sheets, for their assistance during my visit.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... v

Abstract ...... vi

1. TRADITION VS. INNOVATION IN VIOLIN MAKING ...... 1 2. FRANÇOIS CHANOT AND THE LÉTÉ WORKSHOP ...... 15 3. JEAN-BAPTISTE VUILLAUME AND FÉLIX SAVART ...... 30 4. OTHER NINETEENTH-CENTURY INNOVATORS ...... 46 5. INNOVATION IN THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES ...... 62 APPENDIX ...... 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 79 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 86

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 A cross section of a violin. The bass bar is on the left and the sound post is on the right...... 7 2.1 The backwards scroll, the shield scroll, and the small traditional scroll ...... 19 2.2 Chanot Guitar-Violin NMM 1287, front and back ...... 22 2.3 Ivory and ebony detailing on the saddle, end button, and edges of NMM 1287. The bearclaw marking can be seen running beneath the string holder ...... 23

2.4 The innovative bridge design for Chanot’s guitar-violin ...... 24 2.5 Chanot ergonomic guitar-violin NMM 14530 ...... 25 2.6 Chanot Five-String Violin/Viola NMM 10011, front and back ...... 27

2.7 The crescent sound holes of Chanot’s five-string violin/viola ...... 28 3.1 Félix Savart’s trapezoidal violin ...... 34 3.2 Vuillaume’s octobass ...... 37 3.3 Vuillaume’s contralto...... 40 3.4 Vuillaume’s hollow steel bow ...... 43 3.5 The tip of Vuillaume’s self-rehairing bow...... 43 4.1 Stauffer’s Arpeggione (1833) ...... 48 4.2 Stauffer’s experimental violin with equalized bouts (1826), NMM 10028 ...... 49 4.3 (a) Howell’s patented Spanish guitar (1839); (b) Howell’s patented violin (1836) ...... 51 4.4 The brands on the top and bottom plates of Howell’s violin, NMM 10238 ...... 54 4.5 Sulot’s patent viola (1828), NMM 14529 ...... 56 4.6 Front and side views of Stelzner’s violotta (1896), NMM 6719 ...... 60 5.1 Rivinus’s Pellegrina viola ...... 73

ABSTRACT

Tensions between innovation and tradition in violin making have impeded the acceptance of most attempts to improve or alter the structure of the instrument. The nineteenth century, however, saw a proliferation of innovative violins, as luthiers responded to musical developments and changing social and economic environments during the Industrial Revolution.

As nineteenth-century composers called for greater range and diversity in timbre, chromaticism, dynamics, range, and key, instruments were developed to accommodate these demands. But perhaps more important than the purely musical considerations was the interdisciplinary collaboration between musicians and scientists in the pursuit of acoustic perfection. Many luthiers viewed themselves as scientists and engineers, experimenting with acoustic properties and new materials in order to improve upon the existing form of the violin. In a reciprocal relationship, acousticians recognized musical instruments as rich sources for the study of acoustic principles, and luthiers consulted with acousticians and engineers about the technical construction of experimental forms.

François Chanot, Jean-Baptise Vuillaume, Félix Savart, Johann Georg Stauffer, Thomas

Howell, Nicholas Sulot, and Alfred Stelzner developed innovative violins informed by science in attempts to improve the acoustics, playability, and ease of production of the instrument. This paper will examine the environment and conditions in the early-to-mid nineteenth century that impelled these makers to experiment with the traditional form of the violin. Discussing the makers’ biographies and examining the technical construction of these instruments for insight into their novel construction techniques and acoustic properties, this paper relates the experimental trend to the alliance of the sciences and arts during the Industrial Revolution and briefly discusses continued innovation in the following two centuries. A study of the motivations

vi and aims of such experimental violin makers and the technical construction of these instruments offers a look into the cultural milieu of the first decades of the nineteenth century, when technology, the arts, history, and science intersected in new ways, challenging musical traditions.

vii

CHAPTER ONE

TRADITION VS. INNOVATION IN VIOLIN MAKING

Introduction

Interest in the collection and study of musical instruments increased with the rise of the

Enlightenment and of colonial forces in the late eighteenth century, as scholars recognized their significance as historical and ethnographic resources, and by the nineteenth century organology had come into its own as an academic discipline. Victor-Charles Mahillon, curator at the Musée

Instrumental du Conservatoire Royal de Musique in Brussels, developed the most extensive collection of instruments of the time, and in 1880 he published the first volume of his classification system for musical instruments.1 Erich M. von Hornbostel and Curt Sachs, expanding upon Mahillon’s work, introduced a new and more flexible system of instrument classification in 1914,2 which is still in common use today. Influenced by Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), early organologists held an evolutionary and comparative view of the development of musical instruments, believing that the increasing genius of composers generated the creation of superior instruments.3 This teleological emphasis on compositional motivation is no longer widely accepted in the contemporary field of organology, where it is generally held that new compositional idioms tend to follow the creation of innovative instruments. Tensions between changing musical styles and instrumental limitations only partially explain the development and evolution of new instruments.

1 Lucius R. Wyatt, “The Brussels Museum of Musical Instruments,” Music Eduators Journal 53/6 (1967): 48. 2 Erich M. von Hornbostel and Curt Sachs, “Classification of Musical Instruments,” in Ethnomusicology: An Introduction, edited by Helen Myers (New York: Norton, 1992): 444-61. Originally published as “Systematik der Musikinstrumente,” in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 46 (1914): 553-90. 3 Laurence Libin, “Progress, Adaptation, and the Evolution of Musical Instruments,” Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society 26 (2000): 187-213.

While the piano, organ, and most wind instruments have undergone significant modifications since their inventions in order to adapt to changing repertoire, new technology, and larger performance spaces, the instruments of the violin family have remained largely unchanged since the transition from the Baroque to the standardized form universally used today, when the neck and fingerboard were slightly elongated. As a result of the standardized concert repertoire, the attachment of musicians to their instruments, traditional teaching methods, sacralized concert culture, resistance among luthiers, and the difficulty of securing patents for novel instruments, traditionalism in musical instrument making has impeded most attempts to improve the structure of the instruments of the violin family. Although some experimentation can be seen today in the contemporary work of David Rivinus and Joseph Curtin, among others, the violin has long been considered immune to lasting change, “perhaps the only human contrivance, which, taken as a whole, may be pronounced to be—perfect.”4

Tradition and Innovation in Violin Making

This study is structured by the concepts of “tradition” and “innovation,” which I use when discussing the intentions of violin makers, their production process, and the construction of their instruments. “Tradition” refers to the established, long-maintained practices of violin making, generally based upon instruments built by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century

Cremonese makers. This traditional violin structure is considered to be the characteristic and defining form of the instrument, and it has continued to be passed on through generations as a set of customs and standardized procedures. “Innovation” indicates the departure from this

4 Edward Heron-Allen, Violin-Making: A Historical and Practical Guide (New York: Dover, 2005), 104. Originally published as Violin Making: As It Was and Is: Being a Historical, Theoretical, and Practical Treatise on the Science and Art of Violin-Making, for the Use of Violin Makers and Players, Amateur and Professional (London: Ward, Lock, and Co.: 1885). 2 conventional design of the violin, usually in the form of experimentation with materials, acoustical properties, and construction techniques.

The tensions between tradition and innovation in the violin are evident in the work of both instrument makers and musicians. Resistance to change can stem from the deep attachment of many violinists to their instruments, which are often the source of their livelihoods. Having invested time and effort in mastering standard techniques and developing a familiarity with the idiosyncrasies of the violin, it is understandable that many musicians would be hesitant to switch to experimental models. Traditional educational models for the violin depend heavily upon standardized methods and repertoire from the earliest stages, while conservatory training prioritizes career prospects as a performer and certainly does not encourage flexibility for experimentation with long-held practices. Violin makers are generally uninterested in creating innovative instruments that may prove financially risky, especially if time must be taken to train factory workers in new techniques or if significant investments in new equipment must be made.

Even if a new model is developed, successfully securing a patent for the design is a long and expensive process.

It is the traditionalist mindset cultivated by symphony orchestras and other professional institutions over centuries, however, that has perhaps most significantly contributed to the resistance to new or altered violins. As Christopher Small writes, the symphony concert is a sacred and ritualized enactment of Western musical values and traditions for the middle classes, making the implementation of radical changes difficult.5 Many conventional performance settings for violinists impose restrictions on the acceptable types of music and instruments that may be used. At the most basic level, the musicians of a symphony orchestra function as a

5 Christopher Small, “Performance as Ritual: Sketch for an Inquiry into the True Nature of a Symphony Concert,” in Lost in Music: Culture, Style, and the Musical Event, ed. Avron Levine (New York: Routledge, 1987), 19. 3 homogenous group working toward the creation of a musical product. Even an innovative violin capable of producing a sound comparable to that of a traditional violin risks differentiating its player visually from the surrounding musicians and disturbing the expected uniform appearance of the orchestra. The use of traditional instruments is expected here to achieve a blended group sound and to reproduce the characteristic violin tone for this quasi-sacred repertoire of canonic works. Unfortunately, such traditionalism in repertoire and instrumentation seems to be having a negative effect on the state of the symphony orchestra in the twenty-first century, as audience numbers are dwindling and many organizations struggle to remain financially viable. While violin makers and musicians have access to highly sophisticated acoustical knowledge and technology, most remain intent on working from past models rather than pushing forward to adapt to a changing musical culture.

The violin is an important cultural icon as well as a tool for the production of sound, and consequently, attempts to alter its traditional form have been dismissed as superfluous or inappropriate. While many makers have produced innovative violin models over time, the instrument has managed to retain its basic form since its invention nearly five centuries ago. The violin originated in the early sixteenth century, probably from the Cremonese workshop of

Andrea Amati, in a form remarkably near to its current design. The Stradivari and Guarneri families worked from this model to develop what is considered the ideal of perfection in the field; today nearly all traditional violins (from the lowest-quality student models to professional- level instruments) are reproductions of either the Stradivari or Guarneri body patterns.6

Over the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries several details of the violin fittings were altered to achieve the modern setup currently in use; these developments were made in small

6 These Cremonese body patterns differ slightly from early German and Austrian models. Austrian-born Jacob Stainer (1617-1683) was perhaps the most influential of these makers, and his body pattern is representative of German violin making. His violins feature more pronounced arching on the top and bottom plates. 4 stages over time rather than in a single effort to overhaul the structure. In response to increasingly popular commercial concerts and larger halls, the playing length of the strings increased by about half an inch with an elongated fingerboard, the bass bar was fortified to withstand greater tension, new materials for strings were developed, and the bridge height was raised.7 Aside from these alterations, this traditional form has withstood further experiments with body pattern, materials, and acoustic modifications and remained virtually unchanged, allowing even the earliest violins to remain in use today. Is innovation possible in light of such resistance from both makers and players? Joseph Curtin, a contemporary maker of both traditional and experimental violins, argues that in order to be effective, innovative instruments must offer a relevant and tangible advantage over traditional counterparts that is clearly justified in terms of acoustic, aesthetic, or ergonomic necessities.8 A novel violin offering a unique visual appeal but no practical improvement over the traditional design may, understandably, be rejected by conservative musicians; successful innovation requires thorough understanding of the needs of musicians and the available technology. While the violin is celebrated for its timeless design, it is far from perfect. The instrument is expensive to produce and repair, extremely sensitive to changes in temperature and humidity, easily cracked or warped, difficult to adjust, physically uncomfortable to play in the higher registers, and often lacks a powerful sound in the lower registers. Each of these problems presents opportunities for improvements in the durability, ergonomics, tone quality, ease of production, and adjustability of the violin, while allowing it to remain acceptable in conventional symphonic settings.

7 David D. Boyden, “The Violin Group,” in Musical Instruments Through the Ages (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1969), 116-17. 8 Joseph Curtin, “Innovation in Violinmaking” (paper presented at the International Symposium on Musical Acoustics, June 26-July 1, 1998). 5

Improving the Traditional Violin

A basic understanding of the violin’s structure and the desired tonal qualities is necessary for a discussion of its acoustic properties and potential for improvement. Tone quality and evenness, sound projection, ease of playability, response time when the bow is drawn across the string, and sensitivity to a range of dynamics are important qualities expected in a good violin.

As the bow is pulled across the strings of the violin, the resulting oscillations are conducted through the bridge, a larger radiating surface. The feet of the bridge are shaped exactly to the top plate of the violin in order to maximize the transference of oscillations through to the body, which are then radiated to the bass bar and the sound post (Fig. 1.1). The location of these two internal structures in relation to the bridge feet is crucial to the sound quality. The bass bar and sound post serve not only to support the top and bottom plates against the tremendous force exerted by the string tension, but they are the key acoustical elements of the instrument. The bass bar allows for in-phase oscillation of the entire top plate, while the sound post transmits these waves from the top to the bottom plate, also setting the ribs and enclosed air into motion.9 Even when the violin is bowed at high pressure and speed, only about 4% of this energy is actually released as sound.10 Such low efficiency in sound production is a result of the thinness of the strings, however, and little can be done to increase the amount of energy drawn from the string itself. A possibility for increasing sound projection may then be to increase the vibrating ability of the inner structures of the violin, easily achieved by using materials of a lighter weight. The top and bottom plates cannot oscillate at their ideal frequencies (1,000 hz and 60 hz, respectively) when the wood is too thin, however, so a lightweight but equally thick material is

9 Lothar Cremer, The Physics of the Violin, trans. John S. Allen (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1984), 205-6. 10 Ibid., 203. 6 needed.11 Less dense woods, such as balsa, are prone to dents and would be damaged easily by the string tension and force of the sound post, however. This is just one example of the types of challenges faced by makers in the attempt to improve the structure of the violin.

Figure 1.1: A cross section of a violin. The bass bar is on the left and the sound post is on the right.

Despite the traditions and mechanical problems that make the violin resistant to change, the nineteenth century saw a proliferation of innovative violins, as luthiers responded to both musical developments and changing social and economic environments during the Industrial

Revolution. As nineteenth-century composers called for greater potential and diversity in timbre, chromaticism, dynamics, range, and key, and larger performance halls required increased sound projection abilities, new instruments of all kinds were developed to accommodate these factors.

Perhaps more important than purely musical considerations was the interdisciplinary collaboration between musicians and scientists in the pursuit of acoustic perfection. Many luthiers began to view themselves as scientists and engineers rather than artisans, experimenting with acoustic properties and new materials in order to improve upon the existing form of the violin. In a reciprocal relationship, acousticians recognized musical instruments as rich sources for the study of acoustic principles, and luthiers consulted with acousticians and engineers about the technical construction of experimental forms.12

11 Curtin, “Innovation in Violinmaking.” 12 Myles W. Jackson, Harmonious Triads: Physicists, Musicians, and Instrument Makers in 19th-Century Germany (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2006), 2-6. 7

Industrialization in the Nineteenth Century

The nineteenth century saw an increase in the creation and sale of new and innovative instruments as a result of streamlined production processes and access to new materials and technology.13 The spread of industrialization was an immensely powerful force upon political, social, and economic issues in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This time of change was marked by the reorganization of labor and radically new technology applied to manufacturing processes, allowing for cheaper and more efficient methods of production. A first wave of

Industrial Revolution began in Western Europe shortly before the French Revolution. Britain was undoubtedly the superior economic power during this period, inciting a spirit of industrial imitation and competition among neighboring countries such as France and Germany. With improvements in transportation technology, people and ideas crossed borders with greater ease, and information was disseminated more easily. Although it initially delayed industrialization for several decades, the French Revolution in 1789 ultimately propelled even greater industrial growth as a result of new legislation put in place at the end of the war strengthening the power of the middle class. In France secretive craft guilds were abolished and many trade restrictions were lifted, freeing the transmission of information and allowing for greater innovation in previously exclusive crafts, such as lutherie.14

Preceding these economic and industrial changes in the nineteenth century was an intellectual shift encouraging a drive for greater scientific understanding of the natural world and an interest in innovative experimentation. The impact of the scientific and industrial revolutions can be seen in nearly every aspect of life in Western Europe during the nineteenth century, including music. As already noted, many violin makers during this time worked from a scientific

13 Laurence Libin, “Progress, Adaptation, and the Evolution of Musical Instruments,” Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society 26 (2000): 198. 14 Peter N. Stearns, The Industrial Revolution in World History (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2007): 54. 8 perspective, and indeed, a good number of them had educational backgrounds in the physical sciences or collaborated in research with physicists, mathematicians, and acousticians. Science and music had shared close ties throughout history, from Pythagoras to Descartes, and the intersections between the two enrich the contextual understanding of each discipline. An

“interdisciplinary narrative”15 is revealed through the study of innovative nineteenth-century violin makers and their scientific influences, as makers looked to physicists and acousticians for help in improving tone quality, and scientists, in turn, were eager to use these instruments as grounds for acoustic experiments. Music was crucial to the work of scientists such as Félix

Savart, Georg Simon Ohm, Hermann von Helmholtz, John Tyndall, and Ernst Florens Friedrich

Chladni, who aided in the measurement and standardization of metronomes, tuning systems, and novel construction techniques.

François Chanot, Johann Georg Stauffer, and Jean-Baptise Vuillaume each developed innovative violins in attempts to improve the acoustics, playability, and ease of production of the instrument. Chanot, a marine engineer specializing in naval construction, hoped to improve the traditional form by applying a guitar shape to the body of the violin and also experimenting with ergonomic body patterns. Stauffer was also interested in guitar-violin hybrids, producing string instruments strikingly similar to those of Chanot’s workshop, as well as inventing the arpeggione, for which Franz Schubert wrote his Sonata in A minor, D. 821. Vuillaume, a well- known maker whose instruments are still in demand today, collaborated with the medical doctor and acoustician Félix Savart in the search for improved tone production and also invented the contralto viola, the octobass, and several novel bow mechanisms.

As mentioned above, experimental violins are still widely spurned in orchestral and solo settings today (although they are slowly gaining greater acceptance), and the lack of research

15 Jackson, Harmonious Triads, 3. 9 into these innovative forms may reflect the unwillingness of many musicians to accept such modifications to the traditional structure of the instrument. Most of these innovative designs were dismissed or quickly fell out of favor, but they remain important in the history of the violin and as an indication of changing musical and intellectual perspectives during the nineteenth century. The history of violin making from the nineteenth century through today places the classic Stradivari and Guarneri designs at the forefront and assigns luthiers who deviate from these models to a lower standing. In an area so steeped with tradition and idealization it can be difficult to approach the history of violin making objectively and accurately. In the same way that much of musical historiography and performance repertoire tends to center around a canonic list of composers and works, the field of violin making has remained static and focused upon imitation of the past. A study of both the motivations and aims of such experimental violin makers and the technical construction of these novel instruments offers a look into the cultural milieu of the first decades of the nineteenth century when technology, the arts, history, and science intersected in new ways, challenging musical traditions.

By studying the experimental work of Chanot, Stauffer, and Vuillaume, this thesis clarifies the environment and conditions in the early-to-mid nineteenth century that impelled makers of the violin family to experiment with the traditional form of the violin. It presents the makers’ biographies and explains the technical construction of these instruments in order to give insight into their novel construction techniques and the acoustic properties of their innovative instruments. In doing so, it relates this experimental trend to the alliance of the sciences and arts during the Industrial Revolution, comparing traditionalism and innovation in violin making from the perspective of luthiers and musicians.

Review of Literature

The literature on both traditional and experimental instrument making contains resources about specific instruments and makers, as well as more general theoretical discourse on innovation and cultural change. Joseph Curtin, a present-day luthier and researcher specializing in experimental violins, has published several articles on innovative violin making. His articles

“Innovation in Violin Making” (1999) and “Subject to Change: Innovation among

Violinmakers” (2006) both discuss the acoustical shortcomings of traditional violins and current attempts at improving sound quality. Karin Bijsterveld and Marten Schulp write about the intersections of science, technology, and classical instruments in “Breaking Into a World of

Perfection: Innovation in Today’s Classical Musical Instruments” (2004), while Myles W.

Jackson specifically addresses the role of physicists in acoustic experimentation during the nineteenth century in Harmonious Triads: Physicists, Musicians, and Instrument Makers in 19th-

Century Germany (2006). Curt Sachs provides an organological overview of musical instruments that considers the compositional impetus for new instruments in The History of Musical

Instruments (1940). Laurence Libin further traces the historiography of innovation in musical instruments in “Progress, Adaptation, and the Evolution of Musical Instruments” (2000), and

Christopher Small’s “Performance as Ritual: Sketch for an Inquiry into the True Nature of a

Symphony Concert” (1987) places this information into the social context of the concert hall.

Finally, H. G. Barnett explores innovation and cultural change from a wider anthropological perspective in Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change (1953), offering a theoretical background from which to address the impact of organological development.

Specific violin makers are addressed in several encyclopedias and dictionaries of music as well as in-depth biographical works. Christina Linsenmeyer’s PhD dissertation titled

“Competing with Cremona: Violin Making Innovation and Tradition in Paris (1802-1851)”

(2011) discusses the life and work of François Chanot in the context of nineteenth-century

Parisian trade fairs and exhibitions. Alex Timmerman explores the history of guitar making in the early nineteenth century, emphasizing the influence of Johann Georg Stauffer and his hybrid guitar-violins in “Guitars with Extra Bass Strings: Johann Georg Stauffer and His Son Johann

Anton Stauffer and Their Contemporaries” (2006). Harvey S. Whistler and Ernest N. Doring published a biographical work on Jean-Baptise Vuillaume titled Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume of

Paris (1961), placing Vuillaume in the historical context of nineteenth-century Paris. “‘La

Lutherie’ at Mirecourt” (1977) examines the tradition of violin making at Mirecourt, the center of French lutherie since the seventeenth century, to which Chanot and Vuillaume are connected.

Providing information on the historical context of French violin making, Roland Baumgartner’s article “Nicolas Lupot, His Contemporaries, and Pupils: Violin Making in Pairs from 1770-

1835” (2000) looks at other influential violin makers working during the early nineteenth century. Each of these sources provides relevant information regarding biography, violin making traditions, and organology, but there is little discussion of the reasons these makers wished to modify the violin form. My project expands upon this work by framing these makers within a broader context of influential socio-economic and cultural changes.

Several encyclopedias and dictionaries on the history and structure of the violin are useful in understanding the traditional form, acoustics, and construction of the instrument. James

Beament’s The Violin Explained: Components, Mechanism, and Sound (1997) and Lothar

Cremer’s The Physics of the Violin (1984) are both good resources concerning acoustic properties and construction materials. The comprehensive Universal Dictionary of Violin & Bow

Makers (1973) by William Henley traces the lineage and stylistic traditions of influential violin

12 makers. Sheila M. Nelson, in The Violin and Viola: History, Structure, Techniques (2003), discusses the general history of the violin from antiquity to its modern form, briefly addressing attempts at experimentation.

In relating these violin makers to a historical context, several general histories of the

Industrial Revolution and the nineteenth century have been useful. Carl Dahlhaus surveys the music, aesthetic principles, and social history of the time in Nineteenth-Century Music (1989), placing particular emphasis on musical continuity and change, perceiving the breaking of norms to be the basis of historical narratives. General studies of the Industrial Revolution provide insight into the social, political, and economic forces at work upon musicians, luthiers, and businesses during the nineteenth century. In The Industrial Revolution in World History (2007),

Peter N. Stearns defines the technology and work organization of European economic systems during the Industrial Revolution, before discussing the economic transformations in France and

Germany affecting factory production and new technologies from 1880 to 1950. Similarly, The

Industrial Revolution in National Context 1996), edited by Mikuláš Teich and Roy Porter, delves into issues of industrialization processes, technical skills, economic analysis, national politics, and international relations for both France and Germany. L. C. A. Knowles’s book on Economic

Development in the Nineteenth Century (1947) examines the Industrial Revolution of France in relation to the reconstruction of France by Napoleon and the progress of French industry, national workshops, and social legislation through the early nineteenth century.

Method

This thesis begins with a brief overview of several relevant theoretical perspectives regarding the classification and development of musical instruments. Intersections between music and science provided the grounds for acoustical experimentation in the early nineteenth

13 century, and the first chapter focuses primarily on issues of traditionalism and innovation in violin making by discussing the collaboration between physicists, acousticians, and luthiers in the context of the Industrial Revolution as impetus for innovation in violin design. Using biographical and organological studies, the following chapters examine the innovative violins of

François Chanot, Johann Georg Stauffer, and Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume, providing a look into the environment for each composer that fostered such experimentation and demonstrating the influence of technology and industrialization upon the construction of these instruments. I will research the background of each maker, discuss their initial forays into lutherie, their motives for modifying the violin structure, and any collaborative work in designing their experimental instruments. Chanot’s background in naval engineering coupled with an extensive family history of violin making, Stauffer’s work as an important guitar maker, and Vuillaume’s collaboration with the acoustician Félix Savart will be given special consideration in relating these luthiers to the experimental zeitgeist of the early nineteenth century.

Focusing on instruments that I consider to represent the experimental vision for each of the three makers, I will then discuss the technical construction of the instrument (measurements, materials, body patterns, and general acoustic principles) using the information compiled from my research at the National Music Museum.16 Photographs will supplement this organological study, and a diagram of the standardized modern violin in use today will be provided in the appendix for comparison and reference. Concluding this study, I will briefly discuss the use and reception of such experimental violins and their implications for innovative instrument making today.

16 This research was carried out in the summer of 2012 with the aid of a grant from the Curtis Mayes Orpheus Fund of Florida State University. 14

CHAPTER TWO FRANÇOIS CHANOT AND THE LÉTÉ WORKSHOP

François Chanot’s Guitar-Violins François Chanot, born in Mirecourt in 1787, was the son of the violin maker Joseph

Chanot but did not follow his father into the lutherie business, instead choosing to study mathematics and engineering at l’École polytechnique in Paris. After graduating from the institute, he entered the French navy in 1809 to work in naval construction as a marine engineer and was promoted to the rank of petty-Engineer by Napoleon in 1812, with the title of Capitaine,

Ingenieur, Deuxieme-classe.17 By 1816, however, after distributing satirical materials regarding

Restoration leaders, Chanot fell under suspicion of anti-Bourbon views and political sympathies with Napoleon (who had been exiled in 1815 following the battle of Waterloo) and was placed under police supervision before being dismissed from the navy later that year, despite appeals.

Returning to Mirecourt, the prominent center of French violin making from the nineteenth century through today, François Chanot took up work in his father’s violin shop and began applying his engineering knowledge to instrument construction, although he had limited knowledge of the latter craft. With abundant free time, ideas, and scientific resources, he decided that the violin could be redesigned to improve sound projection, tone quality, and playability, and conceptualized the use of relevant scientific principles in his Mémoire pour fixer de manière invariable les procédés que le luthier doit employer dans la confection des instruments à cordes et à archets (Memoir to Standardize the Processes that the Luthier Employs in the Making of

17 William Henley, “François Chanot,” in Universal Dictionary of Violin & Bow Makers (Brighton Sussex, England: ‘Amati’ Publishing, 1973): 218-19. 15

Stringed and Bowed Instruments).18 The first part of this memoir discusses the division of the fingerboard through a set of algebraic equations that divided the octave into twelve equal semitones, eliminating the subtle differences between enharmonic notes with the addition of frets. The second part of the memoir concerns the alteration of the traditional violin shape in order to increase resonance of the body. He conceived of a violin design borrowing aspects from the body of a guitar, and in 1817 he patented his “guitar-violin,” becoming the first person to patent a violin model, and proceeded to form his own company in order to expand the production and marketing of these novel instruments, which ranged in cost from 500 to 700 francs.19 In

November of 1819 he contracted with Marie-Marguerite Simon-Lété and J. Baptiste Charles

Payonne, forming the association Chanot, L’Eté Simon, and Payonne in order to make and sell

Chanot’s guitar-violins in Paris and Mirecourt. Chanot functioned more as an engineer and entrepreneur, and did not actually build any of these instruments; he placed the twenty-year-old

Mirecourt luthier Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume (who had worked previously in a factory mass- producing guitars) in charge of construction and hired Georges Chanot, François’s younger brother, as an assistant. Several apprentices later joined the workshop, and the operation became the largest full-scale, commercial attempt to produce a line of violins significantly departing from tradition. In addition to instrument construction, Vuillaume and Georges Chanot were also in charge of procuring tools and wood, dealing with many financial matters, and training apprentices. Working very closely during this time, the two formed a strong connection that would continue for years in their professional lives.20 The exact number of Chanot models made

18 Christina Linsenmeyer, “Competing with Cremona: Violin Making Innovation and Tradition in Paris (1802- 1851)” (PhD Diss., University of Washington, 2011): 102. 19 Henley, “François Chanot,” 219. As a reference helpful in interpreting these prices in relation to wages in 1819, an unskilled Parisian laborer earned about 2.75 francs per day, while a mason averaged about 3.50 francs per day (Peter Lindert and Leticia Arroyo Abad, “Global Price and Income History Group Database,” University of California-Davis, accessed January 31, 2013, http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/Datafilelist.htm). 20 Alain Giraud, “A Thwarted Revolution?” The Strad 115/1373 (2004): 901. 16 and sold is unknown; Giraud estimates that about 200 were made but probably not all of them were ever sold.21

The guitar-violins were first introduced to the public when Chanot presented them for trial and evaluation at the Académie royale des Beaux-Arts in 1817 along with his memoir, and again in 1819, with a quartet of the new models. The earliest guitar-violin submitted in 1817 featured a fretted neck, and Chanot claimed it was easier to play than conventional violins because the fingerboard was divided in order to facilitate playing along two octaves on a single string.22 The Académie rejected this particular innovation, however, on the grounds that the flexibility of tonal possibilities on the violin was crucial to the instrument’s character.

Consequently, the second round of guitar models presented for trial in 1819 was unfretted.

During the first Académie evaluation the famous violinist Alexandre-Jean Boucher performed the same excerpts on Stradivari, Amati, and Guarneri violins and then Chanot’s guitar-violin for the committee, hidden from sight; the Chanot violin was repeatedly mistaken for the Stradivari and praised as “decisive proof, which establishes the superiority of manufacture of the new violin over that of the old makers.”23 In 1819 Chanot presented a quartet of his innovative instruments, violin, viola, cello, and bass, to the Académie for evaluation. Again, the Chanot instruments, with the exception of the bass, were deemed superior to the finest Cremonese instruments available. That same year, one of the violins was demonstrated for King Louis XVIII at the Exposition des Arts et de l’Industrie in the Louvre Palace, and sales soared. By altering the body structure and internal acoustic components without requiring modification in performance technique, and by improving the sound quality without deviating from the characteristic violin sound, Chanot’s instruments seemed poised to affect dramatically the evolution of the violin.

21 Giraud, “A Thwarted Revolution?” 902. 22 Linsenmeyer, “Competing with Cremona,” 106. 23 Ibid., 112. 17

The most immediately striking aspect of this new design is its rounded, cornerless body shape with no overlapping edges, similar to that of a guitar or a viol. The edges of the top and bottom plates align flush to the ribs and are rimmed with either ivory or wood for protection and increased shock resistance, whereas the two plates of a traditional violin overhang the ribs and are bolstered by inlaid purfling. The curved ribs are constructed from two long pieces of wood rather than six shorter segments cut for each edge, and this curvature also eliminates the need for interior corner blocks. The use of a rounded body pattern on the violin was not original to

Chanot, however; Johann Georg Stauffer was experimenting with a similar model in Vienna at the same time as Chanot, Gasparo da Salò and Antonio Stradivari had made cornerless violins in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, respectively, and it has continued to be used by innovative makers up to the twenty-first century.24 There may be several reasons for the continual appearance of this design aspect. The rounded edges reduce the weight of the instrument, as well as the time and materials needed in the manufacturing process. The streamlined edges also allow the left hand easier access to the higher registers of the violin, making the instrument more ergonomic and comfortable to play. The cornerless body without overhanging edges is difficult to open up for repairs, however, when the top plate must be removed. The overhang on traditional violins provides an easy point of access for sharp edges used in the removal and reattachment of the top. (This problem is not so apparent with guitars, because the larger sound hole allows easier access to the interior.) The bodies of Chanot’s guitar- violins are actually closer to the size of a traditional fifteen-inch viola, and these instruments benefit from being strung as violas rather than violins.

24 John Koster, “Inventive Violin Making: Important Acquisitions Enrich Museum’s Holdings,” America’s Shrine to Music Museum Newsletter 28/3 (2001): 1. 18

The cornerless body is not the only structural feature Chanot borrowed from the guitar.

He eliminated the tailpiece and fastened the strings using small bolts to two sections of ebony veneers attached directly to the spruce top plate and underneath it, making the instrument lighter and enhancing the overtones. This may possibly have the adverse effect of dampening vibrations in the top plate, however, because the material is in direct contact with the wood itself. Longer strings are also needed when using this guitar-style attachment, as it is placed further back on the violin than a traditional tailpiece, and installing the strings would be made much more difficult because they must be knotted inside the violin. Chanot also experimented with the use of backwards scrolls on many of his guitar-violins to assist the player in winding the strings into the pegs, especially the A string, which is placed furthest back in the peg box. Unfortunately, these reversed scrolls make the violin unstable when rested on its back. Other Chanot scroll types are forward-facing but smaller and simplified or feature small shield-shaped ornaments in place of a scroll (Fig. 2.1). The varnish of most of the guitar-violins is a much lighter color and more thinly applied than what is usually seen on traditional violins. While a very thin coat of varnish immediately affords a brighter tone, it also tends to wear away very quickly, although I did not observe this effect on any of the Chanot instruments I studied.

Figure 2.1: The backwards scroll (left), the shield scroll (center), and the small traditional scroll (right).

Ergonomics and aesthetics seemed less important to Chanot, as seen in his memoir, than the improvement of sound quality and projection. Theorizing that wood fibers should be as long as possible to achieve greater vibration in the top plate and thus improve sound projection,25

Chanot strove to avoid interrupting the length of the fibers by cutting simplified sound holes in sloping crescent shapes that closely hug the contours of the ribs in place of the conventional f- holes. Though the standard thickness of the top and bottom plates is maintained in this new body structure, Chanot claimed that the two plates were actually much stronger and produced a more resonant sound than traditional violins because of the lengths of the uncut fibers as a result of the

C-shaped sound holes. Basing his work on the acoustic theory of mathematician Pierre-Louis

Moreau de Maupertuis, Chanot thought that longer wood fibers would yield a stronger bass sound, while shorter fibers correspond to a better treble sound. Maupertuis, who presented this theory to the Parisian Académie des Sciences in 1724, believed that the integral nature of music and science called for the use of musical instruments in the investigation of natural phenomena.26

His theory on wood fiber resonance was later shown to be incorrect by Félix Savart, as will be discussed in the following chapter.

In addition to modifying and simplifying the external structure of the violin, Chanot also made significant changes to the crucial internal components. Most significantly, the bass bar on many of his instruments is placed directly in the center of the underside of the top plate, and the sound post is set in front of the right foot of the bridge, rather than behind it. Other guitar-violins instead feature an arched bass bar with thinner ends shifted slightly to the left. It is possible that

Chanot varied the placement and design of the bass bars and sound posts in his guitar-violins due

25 Henley, “François Chanot,” 218-19. 26 Albert Cohen, Music in the French Royal Academy of Sciences: A Study of the Evolution of Musical Thought (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981): 45-46. 20 to the different tensions placed upon the top and bottom plates from the absence of a tailpiece and crescent-shaped sound holes, but I have not found a direct explanation for these changes.

While these acoustic adjustments were initially quite successful, as evidenced in both of the positive Académie reports, Chanot’s guitar-violins did not gain widespread favor and soon became novelties found only in museums. Chanot’s interest in violin making soon began to wane, when he was reinstated in the navy and assigned to assist in the development of the steam engine in 1820. Under the funding of Lété and Payonne the business had initially expanded quickly, and the ownership of the workshop was eventually passed to Nicolas-Antoine Lété, an organ maker and son of Marie-Marguerite, but the venture was ultimately a commercial failure, and the shop was closed by 1823. François Chanot died two years later, in 1825, and his legacy was carried on in the work of his brother Georges and Vuillaume, both of whom went on to successful careers in violin making. Vuillaume evidently considered his time in the Chanot-Lété workshop to be important to his career; when the Musée du Conservatoire exhibited a collection of Vuillaume’s most significant contributions to violin making nearly fifty years later, Vuilluame himself donated a guitar-violin model to be included.27

Violin NMM 128728 (1819), Chanot and Lété Workshop

This guitar-violin was constructed in 1819 in the Chanot and Lété workshop and was likely built by either Georges Chanot or Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume (Fig. 2.2). The paper label inside the violin is handwritten in black ink as “Chanot Luthier / à Paris l'an 1819.” Featuring the characteristic guitar-shaped rounded body without overhanging edges, the top plate is made

27 Giraud, “A Thwarted Revolution?” 902. 28 This is cataloguing system used by the National Music Museum, to which these instruments belong. 21 of two joined pieces of medium grain, quarter-cut29 spruce with unusual bearclaw markings

(distinctive ripples and swirls in the spruce fibers prized for their rarity and aesthetic appeal), and the back plate is a single piece of quarter-cut maple. The ribs are constructed from two pieces of maple, joined at the bottom by a small, inlaid ebony cap, contrasted by the ivory lining with ebony purfling that runs along the edge of the ribs connecting the top and bottom plates (Fig.

2.3). The inlaid saddle, end button, string holder, and the edges of the sound holes are also made of ebony. The forward-facing scroll, made of maple, is somewhat smaller than and lacks the ornamental ridges seen on conventional violins. It was noted in the instrument’s archival files that this may not be the original scroll.

Figure 2.2: Chanot Guitar-Violin NMM 1287, front and back.

29 “Quarter-cut” refers to a method of sawing, in which the log is first quartered lengthwise and then sawed into a number of parallel cuts perpendicular to the grain. This cut produces a more consistent wood grain in each section and resists excessive warping over time. 22

Figure 2.3: Ivory and ebony detailing on the saddle, end button, and edges of NMM 1287. The bearclaw marking can be seen running beneath the string holder.

Although I have not come across any mention of Chanot’s bridge design, it is worth noting its unusual shape, with a narrow waist and a flattened oval cut-out in the center (Fig. 2.4).

While this is not the original bridge, it is an imitation of Chanot’s own patented bridge design.

This streamlined bridge design appears to use less wood and may be another attempt to lighten the overall weight of the violin. The violin is lightly varnished with a matte finishing, fitted with gut strings, and is in good playing condition, overall, with a small crack in the upper back bout that has been repaired. The measurements for the guitar-violin NMM 1287 are as follows:

Stop length30: 190 mm

Vibrating string length: 327 mm

Original neck length (bottom of nut to ribs): 131 mm

Upper bout width: 168 mm

Center bout width: 107 mm

30 “Stop length” refers to the distance from the edge of the top plate joining the neck block and the inner notch of the F-hole or sound hole. 23

Lower bout width: 209 mm

Back length: 370 mm

Upper bout rib height: 32-33 mm

Center bout rib height: 33 mm

Lower bout rib height: 33-34 mm

Figure 2.4: The innovative bridge design for Chanot’s guitar-violin.

Ergonomic Violin NMM 14530 (1819), Chanot and Lété Workshop

The only known Chanot guitar-violin of this unique shape, NMM 14530 is specially designed for increased playability and comfort, in addition to the various acoustic modifications seen and heard on other Chanot models. The wood of this particular violin features similar workmanship and the same distinctive bearclaw markings as NMM 1287, and it is possible that they were made from the same spruce stock. Arian Sheets, the Curator of Stringed Instruments at the National Music Museum, remarks that this variation on the Chanot model has not been seen 24 anywhere else and estimates that it is one of the earliest attempts, if not the earliest, at constructing an ergonomic violin.31 The slope of the upper treble bout is drastically reduced to the same width as the waist, facilitating movement of the left hand and arm around the fingerboard in order to reach the higher registers of the violin with less distension of the arm.

The lower bass bout features a hook-like extension intended to wrap around the left side of the player’s neck, providing a more secure hold on the instrument and a more comfortable surface for the player to grip with his or her chin, the method advocated by French method books at the time.32 Such a feature seems superfluous now, but the top plate arching of the violin caused it to slip easily slip from under the chin when used without a chinrest, and Louis Spohr’s chinrest was still a very new invention that had not yet been widely implemented.

Figure 2.5: Chanot ergonomic guitar-violin NMM 14530.

31 Arian Sheets in correspondence to Kay Marcum ([email protected]) on December 3, 2010. 32 Ibid. 25

The top plate of the ergonomic guitar-violin is made of a single piece of quarter-cut, narrow-grain spruce, the back is one piece of quarter-cut maple, and the ribs are made from three segments of maple, two on the bass side and one on the treble side. As with NMM 1287, the body is cornerless, with no overhanging edges, and the sound holes are crescent-shaped with ebony linings. The purfling at the edges is made from ivory and ebony, while the seams are bound by ebony. The fingerboard, nut, trapezoidal string holder, and pegs are also all made of ebony. Made of maple, the neck is somewhat thinner than those of traditional violins, and the scroll is reversed with ridges. Purchased on behalf of the National Music Museum for $6,500 at auction, this ergonomic violin is in fair condition but has some open seams and a repaired crack in the lower bass bout. The measurements of NMM 14530 are as follows:

Total violin length: 615 mm

Back length (below button to center): 372 mm

Upper bout width: 143 mm

Center bout width: 116 mm

Lower bout width: 220 mm

Upper rib height: 34-35 mm

Center rib height: 34-35 mm

Lower rib height: 34-35 mm

Stop length: 187-203 mm (various bridge marks)

Vibrating string length: 329-344 mm (various bridge marks)

Original neck length (bottom of nut to ribs): 137 mm

Five-String Violin/Viola NMM 10011 (1819), Chanot and Lété Workshop

Figure 2.6: Chanot Five-String Violin/Viola NMM 10011, front and back.

Built in Paris in 1819 and purchased on behalf of the National Music Museum at auction for $1,650 in 2000, this five-string instrument is another unusual variant on the Chanot guitar- models. Its five strings (C, G, D, A, E) allow this instrument to cover both the violin and viola range. The varnish is dark brown, and the label inside the instrument is handwritten in black ink with Francois. Chanot (angled to form an upside down “V” shape) / à Paris. 1819. The top plate is a single plate of medium-grain spruce, and the back and ribs are made of maple. The rounded body does not overhang the edges, which are capped with strips of ivory and pearwood, while the purfling consists of five alternating strips of ebony and ivory. The string holder is a rectangular ebony plaque with ebony and pearwood pins. As with all Chanot instruments, the sound holes are elongated crescents lined with ivory and ebony, although the holes of NMM

10011 do not flare outward toward the bottom bouts, as they do on both NMM 1287 and NMM

14530 (Fig. 2.7). The different cut of the sound holes and the use of different materials may indicate that the five-string violin/viola was made by a different hand than the other two instruments. The measurements for NMM 10011 are as follows:

Total violin/viola length: 619 mm

Stop length (higher bridge position): 190 mm

Stop length (lower bridge position): 211 mm

Vibrating string length (higher bridge position): 325 mm

Vibrating string length (lower bridge position): 337 mm

Original neck length (bottom of nut to ribs): 132 mm

Upper bout width: 179 mm

Center bout width: 129 mm

Lower bout width: 226 mm

Back length: 379 mm

Center Rib height: 32-34 mm

Lower rib height: 34 mm

Figure 2.7: The crescent sound holes of Chanot’s five-string violin/viola.

Conclusions

François Chanot’s unorthodox guitar-violin models were favorably reviewed by France’s most acclaimed musicians and teachers, comparable to Stradivari and Guarneri instruments, made by some of the finest violin makers in Mirecourt and Paris, and were modestly priced.

Though he was not the first to experiment with the traditional design of the violin, Chanot was the first to market it commercially and attempt full-scale production. Unfortunately, the new instruments did not catch on with the performers themselves, which is the most crucial step to an instrument’s being widely adopted. Though the violinists at the Paris Conservatoire, including

Baillot and Kreutzer, had endorsed the guitar-violins, they are not known actually to have used them in their own performances or studios. The sound of the new instruments was good but perhaps not different from the traditional designs enough to justify their continued use. Today they are relegated to museums and auction houses, where they have recently sold for about

$1,500 to $2,000.33

33 Giraud, “A Thwarted Revolution?” 905. 29

CHAPTER THREE JEAN-BAPTISTE VUILLAUME AND FÉLIX SAVART

Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume Beginning as a young luthier in the Chanot-Lété workshop, Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume

(born 1798 in Mirecourt) was to become one of the greatest and most prolific figures in French violin making. He worked from a scientific perspective and was deeply interested in innovation throughout his life, yet he remained intensely reverent of the old Cremonese masters and devoted much of his career to the imitation and copying of the instruments of Amati, Guarneri, Maggini, and Stradivari. Collaborating with both scientists and performers in his continual search for improved sonority and acoustic perfection, he carefully studied old violins to understand their construction and also experimented with the form of his own models. His experiments with the physicist Félix Savart in Paris were especially influential in his construction of experimental instruments. Vuillaume was able to define himself by balancing his work between the

Enlightenment commitment to rational scientific thought and a passion for recreating past models.

François Chanot’s venture was the first to attempt a full-scale revision of the traditional violin for commercial sale, and Vuillaume’s early experience making innovative instruments in the Chanot-Lété workshop surely influenced his creative and financial decisions later into his lutherie career. Soon after Chanot’s departure in 1820 Lété phased out production of the violin guitars and opened a new shop at 20 rue Pavée-Saint-Sauveur in 1822, selling and repairing traditional bowed instruments with Vuillaume as his most valuable violin maker. In his advertisements Lété often took credit for awards given to Chanot and Vuillaume for their earlier work, but by 1823 Vuillaume began taking greater authority over his own work by signing and

30 dating each instrument made by his hand, and by 1825 he requested to be made a partner in the business. The Lété-Vuillaume workshop became particularly known for Stradivari copies, which were Vuillaume’s specialty. Cremonese violins were the standard of excellence for performers and collectors in nineteenth-century Paris (and remain so today), but the prices were far too high for many musicians. Finding that it was difficult to sell his violins based on original models,

Vuillaume shifted his efforts toward constructing affordable imitations rivaling those of

Stradivari and Guarneri in quality and aesthetic appeal. When the business partnership with Lété ended in 1827, Vuillaume formed his own company devoted to the production of these reproductions, and Lété decided to pursue his own venture building organs in 1827.

By this time, Vuillaume had already established a strong reputation with both his

Cremonese copies and his innovative entrepreneurial spirit. His brother, Nicolas-François, joined him in the new workshop (like Chanot, Vuillaume was from a family of violin makers) at 46 Rue

Croix-des-Petits-Champs, increasing production from twelve to thirty-two instruments in a single year.34 Vuillaume eagerly collected old Cremonese instruments from traveling merchants, performers, and antique dealers, dedicating much of his time to studying the materials, varnishes, and internal structures of the instruments in order to produce exact copies. He became an expert at antiquing and distressing new instruments by intentionally marking and scarring the varnish to give them the appearance of older instruments, and he even placed the original labels of

Cremonese makers inside of his own instruments. This does not seem to have been intended as a fraudulent attempt at passing off his own instruments as actual Cremonese models, however, because Vuillaume simultaneously branded his own signature on the interior of each instrument.

With prices starting at 200 francs, Vuillaume’s replicas were the solution for musicians who could not acquire old Italian instruments, and he claimed that they were exact reproductions

34 Roger Millant, J. B. Vuillaume: sa vie et son oeuvre (London: W. E. Hill, 1972), 35. 31 of these more expensive instruments in regard to tone quality, projection power, and outward appearance.35 Many famous violinists over time have used Vuillaume’s reproductions as concert instruments, including Paganini’s protégé Camillo Sivori, Fritz Kreisler, and Aaron Rosand. As

Chanot had done before with his guitar violins, Vuillaume presented his work for trial at exhibitions and competitions, winning the silver medal for his violin costing less than 200 francs at the Exhibition for Industrial Products in 1827 and again in 1832, when Joseph Fétis praised his work, saying, “the twin of a Stradivarius worth 6,000 francs is sold at 600 écus” (about 100 francs).36 In 1838 Vuillaume finally won the Exhibition gold medal, and at the 1851 London

World Fair Vuillaume won the Cross of the Legion of Honour, the highest prize. The Grand

Medal of Honour was presented to Vuillaume for a collection of his instruments at the 1855

World Fair in Paris.

Félix Savart and the Trapezoidal Violin

In addition to his success in reproducing Cremonese instruments, Vuillaume was also an inventor and innovator throughout his career, continually striving to understand and improve the acoustic structures of traditional string instruments. He collaborated on several acoustic experiments with the physician and physicist Félix Savart, who had come to Paris in 1819 to write a thesis on the acoustics of bowed string instruments, the same year Vuillaume joined

Chanot’s workshop. Savart, born in Mézières in 1791, earned a medical degree in Strasbourg in

1816 with a specialty in varicose veins, but he spent much of his leisure time studying acoustics

35 David Schoenbaum, The Violin: A Social History of the World’s Most Versatile Instrument (New York: W. W. Norton, 2013), 64. 36 Sylvette Milliot, “Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume: A Success Story,” in Violins, Vuillaume: A Great French Violin Maker of the Nineteenth Century (1798-1875). Exhibition Catalog 23 October 1998 – 31 January 1999, ed. Rémy Campos, trans. Marianne de Mazières with Bernard Camurat (Paris: Cité de la musique/Musée de la musique, 1998), 51. 32 and physics, abandoning medicine altogether within a few years. Over the next several decades,

Savart devoted himself to understanding the secrets of violin construction and acoustics, and he became particularly well-known in physics for his role in defining the Biot-Savart Law of

Electrodynamics, concerning the currents of magnetic fields. He was appointed professor at the

Collège de France and was elected to the Académie royale des Beaux-Arts in 1827.37

In one of his earliest experiments, a year after graduating from medical school, Savart built a trapezoidal violin in order to test his research on vibrating panels (Fig. 3.1). Based on mathematical models, this instrument was touted as being more acoustically sound than the older

Cremonese models, as well as being easier and faster to construct, making it ideal for factory production.38 With this instrument, Savart hoped to show that flat plates are more resonant than arched surfaces and that the curved ribs and f-holes of a traditional violin interfere with vibration of the violin body.39 The straight-edged trapezoidal violin deviates much further from the traditional violin form than even Chanot’s guitar violins, with a flat two-piece spruce top and a flat bottom plate made of maple, a body that is wider at the bottom bouts, and ribs that are also straight and are deeper than those of average violins. The upper half of the violin must be narrow enough to allow for proper movement of the bow while retaining the same internal air mass as a traditional violin, resulting in a trapezoidal body shape that is nearly an inch smaller than usual.

As in Chanot’s guitar-violins, the tailpiece has been eliminated on this violin and the strings are instead attached to the nut at the bottom. The bass bar is centered in the middle of the top plate, rather than its usual placement on the bass side, the sound post has been moved out toward the

37 James F. Bell, et al., “Félix Savart,” in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/24649 (accessed January 31, 2013). 38 Schoenbaum, The Violin, 61. 39 Edward Heron-Allen, Violin-Making, as it Was and Is; Being a Historical, Theoretical, and Practical Treatise on the Science and Art of Violin-Making, for the Use of Violin Makers and Players, Amateur and Professional (London: Ward Lock, 1885), 118-19. 33 ribs, the bridge height is raised, and the sound holes are straight, narrow slits running along the direction of the spruce grain in order to cut as few fibers as possible.40 The measurements of

Savart’s innovative violin are as follows:41

Body length: 347 mm

Upper end width: 81 mm

Lower end width: 222 mm

Neck length: 141 mm

Stop length: 184 mm

Sound hole length: 70 mm

Rib height: 34.5 mm

Distance from nut to top of bridge: 325 mm

Figure 3.1: Félix Savart’s trapezoidal violin.

In May of 1819, the same year Chanot presented his quartet of guitar-model instruments,

Savart submitted his trapezoidal violin to the Académie royale des Beaux-Arts for trial, where it

40 Christopher Wilson, “Cut the Curves,” The Strad 113/1347 (2002): 750. 41 Heron-Allen, Violin-Making, 120. 34 was played by the famous violinist M. Lefebre and compared to his own concert violin. The jury concluded that Savart’s work was “equal, if not superior, to the Italian instrument.”42 Despite such positive reviews, Savart’s violins were not adopted by musicians and soon fell out of production. He continued to use musical instruments as sources for acoustical research into vibrating bodies, however, and published several papers on his work, including Mémoire sur la communication des mouvements vibratoires entre les corps solides (Memoir on the

Communication of Vibratory Movements through Solid Bodies, 1820), Recherches sur les vibrations de l'air (Research on the Vibrations of the Air, 1823), Nouvelles Recherches sur les vibrations de l’air (New Research on the Vibrations of the Air, 1825), Recherches sur le mécanisme de la voix humaine (Memoir on the Mechanism of the Human Voice, 1826), and

Recherches sur l’élasticité des corps qui cristallisent régulièrement (Researches on the Elasticity of Regularly Crystallized Bodies, 1829).

Savart and Vuillaume in Collaboration

The exact date when Savart and Vuillaume first came into contact is unknown, but they may have met as early as 1819, when they both moved to Paris. With Vuillaume’s expert lutherie skills and large collection of instruments and Savart’s knowledge of physics, they were well equipped to study the vibrations of the violin. In 1838 the two examined a number of

Vuillaume’s Cremonese violins using Chladni figures to study the modes of vibration and their transference throughout the body of the instrument.43 Chladni, the founder of experimental acoustics, measured the longitudinal, transverse, and torsional vibration patterns by sprinkling

42 Wilson, “Cut the Curves,” 750. 43 Thierry Maniguet, “Savart and Vuillaume,” in Violins, Vuillaume: A Great French Violin Maker of the Nineteenth Century (1798-1875). Exhibition Catalog 23 October 1998 – 31 January 1999, ed. Rémy Campos, trans. Marianne de Mazières with Bernard Camurat (Paris: Cité de la musique/Musée de la musique, 1998), 63-65. 35 sand particles onto plane surfaces.44 Vuillaume and Savart also looked at the anisotropy of the wood materials, mapping the grain structure and fiber length to understand their roles in sound production. Vuillaume even provided Savart with strips of wood taken from the top and bottom plates of several Stradivaris and Guarneris for testing.45 Vuillaume, who made his living reproducing Cremonese violins, was especially interested in determining the exact acoustic properties of the original instruments in order to produce better ones himself.

They also experimented with the placement of the sound post, bridge, and bass bar and measured the frequency of the interior, finding that the positioning of the sound post in relation to the bass bar was most essential to sound quality, as the pressure of the sound post between the top and bottom plates regulates vibrations and is conducive to a satisfactory sound in the treble range, while the bass bar provides the flexibility needed for the bass range to speak properly.46 In all of these experiments, Savart and Vuillaume applied their craftsmanship and acoustic knowledge in the attempt to understand the complex structure of the violin. In doing so, Savart was able to supplement his research and teaching methodologies while Vuillaume improved his understanding of the Cremonese models from which he worked.

Vuillaume as Innovator

Vuillaume was continually searching for new materials, tools, and techniques to facilitate production and improve tone quality. He traveled extensively around Europe to find the highest quality maple and spruce, testing preservation and aging techniques for wood in order to achieve a tone rivaling that of old Stradivaris and Guarneris, and developed several new varnishing

44 Christina Linsenmeyer, “Competing with Cremona: Violin Making Innovation and Tradition in Paris (1802- 1851)” (PhD Diss., University of Washington, 2011): 122-23. 45 Millant, J. B. Vuillaume, 134. 46 Maniguet, “Savart and Vuillaume,” 65. 36 methods.47 Though he is most famous for his reproduction of Cremonese instruments,

Vuillaume’s collaborative research with Savart also fueled his interests in experimental instruments, and he devised a number of instruments and mechanisms intended to supplement and improve the existing body of string instruments, including the octobass, contralto, heptachord, several new bows, and an automatic mute. Not all of these experimental instruments were successfully patented, however, and several of them are no longer extant.

The Octobass

Figure 3.2: Vuillaume’s octobass.

First invented by Vuillaume in 1849 and redesigned in 1851, the octobass was relatively successful for several years but was never patented. Intended to enrich the bass range of the symphony orchestra and standing over eleven feet high, the octobass is a large double bass with three strings (C-sharp, G, and C-sharp) played using a number of levers that activate a

47 Harvey S. Whistler and Ernest N. Doring, Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume of Paris (Chicago, IL: W. Lewis, 1961), 62-63. 37 mechanism to pull the strings down against the fingerboard (Fig. 3.2). This giant instrument has a bench permanently attached to its right side, on which the performer stands in order to reach the lever system at the top right bout. Using keys and pedals operated by the left hand, the player presses seven frets onto the strings rather than using fingers to stop the string. First displayed at the National Fair of 1849 in Paris, the octobass was well received and recommended by the judges for use in large concert halls to strengthen the sound of the orchestra.48 When an improved version of the octobass was presented at the 1851 Great Exhibition in London,

Vuillaume was awarded the Cross of the Legion of Honor. Following the Exhibition, Hector

Berlioz announced that the new bass “produces exceptionally beautiful sounds, full and strong without any harshness,” and later wrote about the inclusion of the instrument within symphony orchestras in the second edition of his Traité d’orchestration et d’instrumentation moderne.49 He suggests that at least three should be included in every large orchestra, but advises that a separate part must be written for the octobass, as it cannot produce fast successions of notes due to its size. At the 1855 World Fair held in Paris, Vuillaume presented his octobass and several

Cremonese models, receiving the Grand Medal of Honour along with Adolphe Sax and Aristide

Cavaillé-Coll, for their work with the saxophone and the organ, respectively.50 The measurements of the octobass are as follows:51

Total length: 3480 mm

Body length: 2060 mm

48 Malou Haine, “Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume: Innovator or Conservationist?,” in Violins, Vuillaume: A Great French Violin Maker of the Nineteenth Century (1798-1875). Exhibition Catalog 23 October 1998 – 31 January 1999, ed. Rémy Campos, trans. Marianne de Mazières with Bernard Camurat (Paris: Cité de la musique/Musée de la musique, 1998), 70. 49 Hector Berlioz, Orchestration Treatise: A Translation and Commentary, trans. Hugh MacDonald (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004): 54. 50 Milliot, “Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume: A Success Story,” 55. 51 Musée de la Musique, “Oeuvre de Musée: Octobasse,” accessed February 14, 2013, http://mediatheque.cite- musique.fr/ClientBookLineCIMU/recherche/noticeDetailleByIdPopup.asp?ID=0161700. 38

Upper bout width: 870 mm

Middle bout width: 610 mm

Lower bout width: 111 mm

Stop length: 1888 mm

Scroll length: 502 mm

Vibrating length: 2150 mm

The Heptachord

The original idea for this instrument was not actually Vuillaume’s but was suggested in

1827 by Jean-Marie Raoul (1766-1837), cellist, crown lawyer, and Justice at the Paris Cour de

Cassation. The author of a treatise on cello playing, titled Méthode de violoncelle, contenant une nouvelle exposition des principes de cet instrument, Raoul was interested in resurrecting the popularity of the viola da gamba and enlisted Vuillaume’s help in designing a modernized form of the instrument.52 Derived from a bass viola da gamba, the heptachord is described by Fétis as having seven strings tuned D, A, E, C#, G, D, A like the gamba, but differing in its proportions and tone (although it is unclear in which ways). It was intended to accompany recitatives in place of the piano or cello. Vuillaume showed the heptachord at the National Fair of 1827, and Raoul announced that he was writing a treatise on its performance, but the instrument was never patented and did not gain popularity with performers.53

Contralto

Vuillaume built the contralto for the 1855 Paris Exhibition and intended this instrument to fill in the voicing between the viola and cello sections in orchestral and chamber settings, enriching the lower register while avoiding the often nasal tone of the traditional viola. The

52 Wilhelm Joseph von Wasielewski, The Violoncello and its History, trans. Isobella S. E. Stigand (New York: Da Capo, 1968), 102. 53 Haine, “Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume: Innovator or Conservationist?” 68-69. 39 contralto is a large, broad viola whose upper and lower bouts have been significantly expanded to increase internal air mass and impart a fuller sonority to ensembles (Fig. 3.3). In their experiments, by blowing air through a tube flattened at one end on the edges of the f-hole,

Vuillaume and Savart had discovered that Stradivari violins had an inner body sound of 512

Hz.54 Using this information, Vuillaume attempted to increase the inner body sound of the viola to achieve stronger vibrations, producing the contralto.

Figure 3.3: Vuillaume’s contralto.

Tested at the Brussels Conservatoire, this experiment evidently resulted in a satisfactory tone quality, especially in the lower registers, which often do not speak well on a traditional viola, but its aesthetic appearance was unappealing to many musicians and its size made the instrument difficult and uncomfortable to play.55 Fétis remarked that the contralto was “awkward for the small of stature,” but had “powerful tonal advantages, which bear comparison with the lower register of the viola, without requiring any change of hand position.”56 The French

54 Anne Houssay, “Inventing and Improving: Contra-viola, c. 1850,” in Violins, Vuillaume: A Great French Violin Maker of the Nineteenth Century (1798-1875). Exhibition Catalog 23 October 1998 – 31 January 1999, ed. Rémy Campos, trans. Marianne de Mazières with Bernard Camurat (Paris: Cité de la musique/Musée de la musique, 1998), 208. 55 Heron-Allen, Violin-Making, 108. 56 Millant, J. B. Vuillaume, 101. 40 musicologist and composer Adrien de La Fage found the instrument ineffective because of its

“grotesque” appearance and its “great width, one side of which covering the players’ chest entirely, prevents him from positioning his hand for the higher register and leaning the instrument inwards.”57 Despite its beautiful tone quality, the size of the contralto rendered its use impractical, and it was never patented. The measurements for the contralto are as follows:58

Body length: 415 mm

String length between top nut and bridge: 413 mm

Neck length: 144 mm

Stop length: 225

Scroll length: 115 mm

Upper bouts: 292 mm

Lower bouts: 360 mm

Rib height: 50 mm

Innovative Bows

Like the violin in the nineteenth century, the bow was also subjected to a number of experiments, and Vuillaume’s innovative bows were especially renowned during this time.

Unable to find quality Pernambuco wood for his bows for a period of time, in 1834 Vuillaume experimented with the use of metal as a substitute for the stick and found that it worked quite well. His hollow bows, made of either steel or nickel-silver, were advertised as being as light and flexible as wood bows and sold at the same price of about 25 francs (Fig. 3.4).59 They were displayed at the 1834 Paris Fair, and unlike several of his other innovations these bows were quite successful, and about 500 bows were produced each year until 1850; Vuillaume himself

57 Haine, “Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume: Innovator or Conservationist?” 71. 58 Millant, J. B. Vuillaume, 117. 59 Haine, “Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume: Innovator or Conservationist?” 69. 41 estimated that production reached 5,560 hollow steel bows by 1855, although they were not patented.60

Vuillaume’s hollow metal bows were widely used by both amateurs and professionals, most notably Charles de Bériot and Niccolò Paganini. In a letter to Fétis, Paganini wrote enthusiastically that “these new bows are infinitely preferable and even superior to those in wood; that they combine firmness with equal resistance throughout their length, such as I have never come across in other bows, and enough flexibility to obtain all qualities of sound.”61 De

Bériot responded similarly, writing in a letter to Vuillaume, “I find it excellent and find it has great elasticity in all rebounding bow strokes, without other effects suffering. I feared after what you told me of its shape that it would touch the strings in the strong passages; but I see with pleasure that this is not the case, and its very shape gives it more firmness by preventing it from swinging from right to left. I thus predict a great success for your new invention and congratulate you with all my heart.”62 (Here, I assume that when de Bériot mentions the “shape,” he is referring to the weight of the metal stick.) Production of these hollow metal bows was abandoned by the mid-1850s, and they fell out of use, probably because of their heavier weight and the risk of damage to the wood of the violin from the metal stick. The measurements of the hollow metal bows are as follows:

Length: 73 mm

Weight: 62-63 grams

60 Emmanuel Jaeger, “Violin Bow with Hollow Metal Stick,” in Violins, Vuillaume: A Great French Violin Maker of the Nineteenth Century (1798-1875). Exhibition Catalog 23 October 1998 – 31 January 1999, ed. Rémy Campos, trans. Marianne de Mazières with Bernard Camurat (Paris: Cité de la musique/Musée de la musique, 1998), 213. 61 Haine, “Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume: Innovator or Conservationist?” 69. 62 Jaeger, “Violin Bow with Hollow Metal Stick,” 213. 42

Figure 3.4: Vuillaume’s hollow steel bow.

Vuillaume also invented a “self-rehairing” bow with interchangeable hanks of horsehair

(Fig. 3.5). Patented on February 26, 1836, this innovative bow design allowed the musician to install a new hank of horsehair to the bow in just seconds, and it was therefore particularly attractive to traveling virtuosos, who were often unable to locate a trusted luthier when abroad.

With conventional bows, the frog and tip each have a small channel in which the tied ends of the hair are held in place by small, carefully fitted plugs of wood. Properly measuring the correct amount of horsehair, carving the wood plugs, and ensuring that the hair remains flat when tightened requires training and time, but with Vuillaume’s self-rehairing bows the musician could easily rehair a bow in a short period of time without the aid of a luthier. The hair of

Vuillaume’s bows was attached by small screws in the frog and tip, and individual pre-prepared hanks of hair could be purchased.

Figure 3.5: The tip of Vuillaume’s self-rehairing bow.

On conventional bows, the frog is attached to the stick of the bow through a long, narrow groove, and the hair is tightened by the movement of the frog up and down the stick through this groove as the screw is turned. Noticing that the hair of conventional bows often stretched too far after a longer period of use, causing the frog to move further up the stick and forcing the player to alter the position of the hand, Vuillaume also incorporated a fixed-position frog into several of his bow designs.63 Inside the hollow frog the hank of hair is attached to a piece of copper that moves back and forth through the groove, rather than moving the entire frog. This invention was patented on November 30, 1835, and fixed-frog bows were produced for about fifteen years.64

Other Inventions

In addition to the work discussed above, Vuillaume also produced an automatic mute activated by the player’s chin, eliminating the interruptive action of placing the mute onto the bridge manually, and a machine for making instrument tops and bottoms intended to mechanize the production process.

Conclusion

Vuillaume’s time in François Chanot’s shop was influential in defining his later career as a violin maker. Having observed the failure of the Chanot-Lété business, Vuillaume understood the importance of appealing to the desires of customers, who at the time wanted Cremonese instruments. Modeling his work on these old patterns, Vuillaume was able to establish a solid reputation and support his family, but he was not content simply copying others’ work. The results of his work with Savart altered the field of acoustics and inspired a number of inventions.

63 Millant, J. B. Vuillaume, 108. 64 Emmanuel Jaeger, “A Quartet of Bows with Fixed Frog and Interchangeable Hair Hank,” in Violins, Vuillaume: A Great French Violin Maker of the Nineteenth Century (1798-1875). Exhibition Catalog 23 October 1998 – 31 January 1999, ed. Rémy Campos, trans. Marianne de Mazières with Bernard Camurat (Paris: Cité de la musique/Musée de la musique, 1998), 213. 44

Though many of these inventions were favorably reviewed by musicians and physicists, few of them were ever patented, and only his octobass and innovative bows found success, if only for a short period of time. Like many other instrument makers in nineteenth-century Paris, Vuillaume and Savart employed scientific research in the development of new models and displayed their work as models of industrial progress at national and world fairs.

CHAPTER FOUR

OTHER NINETEENTH-CENTURY INNOVATORS

Introduction

Though François Chanot and Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume are perhaps the best-known innovators of the nineteenth century, several other luthiers, stirred by the new scientific and economic models of the Industrial Revolution, also attempted to redesign violin-family instruments with a scientific perspective in hopes of improving tone, playability, and ease of production. Johann Georg Stauffer, Thomas Howell, Nicolas Sulot, and, later, Dr. Alfred

Stelzner, each envisioned original instrument designs that would revolutionize instrument making and modernize string instruments, in line with acoustic knowledge of the time.

Johann Georg Stauffer (1778-1853) Around the same time that François Chanot, Félix Savart, and Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume were working to redesign the violin, Johann Georg Stauffer was also experimenting with the acoustics and design of the instrument. Born in Vienna on January 26, 1778, Stauffer was originally trained as a cabinetmaker, but his musical talents led him to train with the violin maker

Johann Georg Thir, and he soon became one of the most important Viennese guitar makers of the nineteenth century. His impeccable craftsmanship and his use of the finest quality materials allowed his guitars to sell for 32 Florins, the highest price for guitars during the time.65 Stauffer’s early career was devoted almost solely to the making of guitars, although he had begun making

65 Alex Timmerman, “Guitars with Extra Bass Strings: Johann Georg Stauffer, His Son Johann Anton Stauffer and Their Contemporaries,” in Ivan Padovec (1800-1873) I Njegovo Doba/And His Time, ed. Vjera Katalinić and Sanja Majer-Bobetko (Croatia: Hrvatsko Muzikološko Društvo, 2006), 89. 46 lutes and violins by 1800, and he is famous for several lasting innovations made to the instrument.

In Vienna during the first decades of the nineteenth century, as with violin makers, many guitar makers and performers worked in close collaboration to develop an instrument with greater expressive capabilities, improved tone quality, and a larger volume. Numerous changes were made to the guitar, but unlike those made to the violin many of these were permanently implemented to the standard form. Stauffer’s workshop was home to some of the greatest names in the guitar sphere, including the young guitar maker Christian Friedrich Martin (1796-1873), who began working in Stauffer’s shop in 1823 and later immigrated to the U.S., where he founded C.F. Martin & Company, today the largest manufacturer of flattop acoustic guitars.66

Stauffer was especially significant in the reworking of the guitar form, and his close interactions with the virtuosos Alois Joseph Wolf, Anton Diabelli, and Luigi Rinaldo Legnani prompted

Stauffer to investigate new construction methods. His double-necked “Doppelgitarre” (1807), commissioned by Mauro Giuliani and Alois Wolf, is an early example of his desire to innovate.

Stauffer later created improved guitar models with up to twenty-two frets, a raised fingerboard, a removable neck, a narrowed waist, an increased body height, and an expanded pitch range.67

Having established a notable reputation with his guitars throughout Europe, and as the instrument was losing popularity to the zither, which was coming into vogue at the time, Stauffer turned his attention to the production of violins and cellos instead. He became known for his copies of models by Amati, Guarneri, Maggini, and Stainer (one of the most famous early makers, from Austria). These reproductions were moderately successful but were not of a particularly high quality and reportedly suffered from poor tone production. Perhaps as a reaction

66 “About Martin,” C. F. Martin & Company, accessed February 22, 2013, http://www.martinguitar.com/about- martin.html. 67 Timmerman, “Guitars with Extra Bass Strings,” 89. 47 to such criticism against his violins, Stauffer began making experimental models. He tested new production techniques with his violins and cellos, among them a chemical treatment for thinning the wood, the use of steel rods to fortify the body, reducing the size of corner blocks, and permanently fixing the bridge to the top plate.68 Among Stauffer’s many creations are a patented cornerless violin-guitar hybrid with simplified sound holes and a shield-adorned scroll (quite similar to Chanot’s guitar-violins), doubled-backed violins, the arpeggione, which looks remarkably similar to Chanot’s work (Fig. 4.1), and several violins and cellos with streamlined corners and crescent-shaped sound holes. Three of the latter instruments, which do not appear to have been given specific names, remain today: a violin in the Leipzig University collection, a cello in the Yale University collection, and a violin at the National Music Museum in

Vermillion, South Dakota, NMM 10028, which I was able to examine in person.

Figure 4.1: Stauffer’s Arpeggione (1833).

This streamlined appearance of this instrument is surprisingly modern; the clean lines and minimal design are typical of the Viennese Biedermeier aesthetic during this time. The most striking aspects of NMM 10028 are the equalization in width between the upper and lower bouts,

68 William Henley, “Stauffer, Johann Georg,” in Universal Dictionary of Violin and Bow Makers (Brighton Sussex, England: ‘Amati’ Publishing, 1973), 89. 48 which produces an optical illusion of the instrument narrowing toward the bottom, the streamlined curvature of the ribs, and the crescent-shaped sound holes (Fig. 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Stauffer’s experimental violin with equalized bouts (1826), NMM 10028.

It appears that Stauffer based this instrument on a design plan found in the Allgemeine musicalische Zeitung in 1809 and signed by “P,” which Stauffer attributes to the luthier Antonio

Bagatella, whose Memoir, or Rules for the Construction of Violins - Violas - Violoncellos -

Double Basses was written in 1782. Labeled “Pagatella” on the interior, this violin is constructed without overhanging edges, like Chanot’s guitar-violins, and capped with stained fruitwood. The top plate is a single piece of quarter-cut spruce, the back is made of a single piece of maple, and the ribs and neck are also maple. The measurements of NMM 10028 are as follows:

Back length: 375 mm.

Upper bout width: 189 mm.

Center bout width: 110 mm.

Lower bout width: 189 mm.

Lower bout rib height: 31-32 mm.

Vibrating string length: 323 mm.

Original neck length (bottom of nut to ribs): 132 mm

Thomas Howell

Like Johann Georg Stauffer, Thomas Howell was a guitar maker interested in experimentation who expanded his work to include instruments of the violin family. Howell’s father, a flutist and entrepreneur, established the first shop for the sale of musical instruments in

Bristol, and Thomas, born in 1783,69 followed him into the business by serving as his apprentice from the age of fourteen.70 Taking an early interest in music education, he wrote a manual called

Musical Game, designed to introduce young children to music, and he even composed and published several pieces for violin and guitar. Howell was a violinist and pianist, and there is no indication that he played the guitar, but he seems to have become interested in the instrument after meeting Joseph Anelli, the guitarist to Princess Paoline Borgese and a prolific composer, around 1825.71

Howell experimented with the form of both the Spanish guitar and the instruments of the violin family, and Stewart Button suggests that Joseph Anelli, who also considered himself an inventor, may have inspired some of Howell’s ideas.72 On December 21, 1835, Howell was granted a patent for “Certain Improvements in Musical Instruments,” which outlines his method for achieving greater playability and tone quality from the Spanish guitar by “lengthening the neck…to obtain greater facility to the player and greater command over the strings.”73 The

69 I have been unable to find a death date for Howell. 70 Stewart Button, The Guitar in England: 1800-1924 (New York: Garland, 1989), 253. 71 Philip J. Bone, “Anelli, Joseph,” in The Guitar and Mandolin: Biographies of Celebrated Players and Composers (London: Schott, 1972), 10-11. 72 Button, The Guitar in England, 255-56. 73 Ibid., 256-57. 50 longer neck made it possible to increase the number of frets to nineteen, and the string length grew to 64.5 cm, about 1.6 cm longer than the standard Spanish-style guitar. Howell also altered the body shape of the guitar in his design plan, adding a lyre-shaped head and making the base slightly concave to “offer convenience of holding not found in guitars having the end convexed as is usually the case”74 (Fig. 4.3a). While it is not clear how this new shape would facilitate holding or playing the instrument, it is interesting that Howell did not seem to make this change with acoustics in mind, as the concave base would certainly alter the interior structure and air mass. By using fewer interior bars to structure and support the guitar body, as well as lining the frame of the instrument with a number of veneer layers glued together, he hoped to gain greater durability and vibration power on the soundboard, although this actually resulted in decreased oscillation transmission, because the body became less rigid.75

a. b.

Figure 4.3: (a) Howell’s patented Spanish guitar (1839); (b) Howell’s patented violin (1836).

74 Ibid., 257. 75 Thomas Howell, Certain Improvements in Musical Instruments, Patent 6964, December 21, 1835. 51

Howell’s innovative violin, covered under the same patent as his guitar and built in 1836, is clearly inspired by his guitar design, as they share very similar body shapes (Fig. 4.3b). The violin’s ebony tailpiece is also affixed directly to the top plate, in the same manner as a guitar, so that it is out of the way of the player’s chin, although the string holder is similar to that of a traditional violin. Absent from the guitar, an ornamental carving has been added to the concave base of the violin. This indentation is intended to fit more closely to the neck of the player and provide a more secure grip. While the combination of the ornamentation and concave base make the violin uncomfortable to hold, perhaps such a design was more desirable during a time when neither chinrests nor shoulder rests were commonly in use. A cello based on this same patented design was also constructed by Howell,76 but the National Music Museum does not have one in its collection.

NMM 10238 is a cornerless violin with a shorter body length than a traditional violin, a longer neck, and substantially reduced upper bouts, the intention being to “reduce the length of the upper part of the body in instrument, measuring from the bridge towards the neck, and proportionably increasing the length of the neck, for facilitating the fingering or stopping of the strings of the instruments above mentioned, and also making the lower part of the body of the instrument longer than heretofore, with certain other modifications of the body of the instrument as will improve the sound, notwithstanding the shortening the length of the body in order to encrease [sic] the length of the neck, which…is shown to be of such a length that the performer, stopping the string on the finger board opposite or at the point above where the neck is glued to the instrument, would produce a major tenth to the open string.”77 He believed that “flatness of the back and belly when applied with judgment … is condusive [sic] to a continued equable

76 Brenda Neece, “The Cello in Britian: A Technical and Social History,” The Galpin Society Journal 56 (2003): 111-12. 77 Howell, Certain Improvements in Musical Instruments, Patent 6964, December 21, 1835. 52 sound.”78 The graduated rib height results in the bottom rib being about 5 mm taller than the upper rib, possibly to account for the loss of interior air mass due to the reduced size of the upper bouts and to allow for the top plate to be made flatter while leaving room for proper positioning of the sound post.

The top plate consists of two pieces of fine-grain spruce with a raised ornamentation at the convex base. The back is made of two pieces of maple, and the head and neck are also both maple. The lyre-shaped head, indicated in the patent and seen on the guitar, is absent from this violin. Like the other guitar-influenced instruments discussed before, Howell’s patent violin also features c-shaped sound holes rather than traditional f-holes. Howell apparently felt it important that consumers and other luthiers were aware of the patent, as the label on the interior back plate indicates Made by T. Howell, / Inventor of the Improved / 18- PATENT [in scrolled lines] 36 /

Violin, Tenor, Violoncello, / Double Baſs, & Spanish Guitar. / at his Manufactory and / Music

Warehouse BRISTOL, while the back button is branded with PATENT / T·HOWELL BRISTOL /

INVENTOR, and the top is branded as HOWELL'S / PATENT / [crown] between the tailpiece and the ornamental carving (Fig. 4.4). The measurements for violin NMM 10238 are as follows:

Back length: 307 mm (at center), 314 mm (maximum)

Upper bout width: 131 mm

Center bout width: 110 mm

Lower bout width: 210 mm

Upper bout rib height: 31-32 mm

Center bout rib height: 32-33 mm

Lower bout rib height: 33-36 mm

Total violin length: 618 mm

78 Howell, Certain Improvements in Musical Instruments, Patent 6964, December 21, 1835. 53

Stop length: 126 mm

Vibrating string length: 321 mm

Original neck length (bottom of nut to ribs): 195 mm

Figure 4.4: The brands on the top and bottom plates of Howell’s violin, NMM 10238.

Nicholas Sulot

Little biographical information is available about Nicholas Sulot, a French violinist born

July 19, 1780, in Chatillon-sur-Seine, who worked in Dijon in 1830 and was in Paris by 1840.

He died in 1858. It is unclear whether or not he had any lutherie experience himself, but he conceived several ideas for innovative violins, violas, cellos, and basses that were constructed by an unknown luthier in Dijon.79 His “violon á double echo,” patented May 5, 1839, was built with a second plate underneath the top in order to communicate and reinforce the vibrations, improving tone quality and volume.80 On December 17, 1829, Sulot was granted a patent for

“une table d’harmonie à ondulations qui peut être adaptée à tous instruments à cordes de quelque nature qu’ils soient” (a harmonic table with undulations that can be adapted to all string

79 Henley, “Sulot (Suleau), Nicolas,” in Universal Dictionary of Violin and Bow Makers, 114. 80 James M. Fleming, The Fiddle Fancier’s Guide: A Manual of Information Regarding Violins, Violas, Basses, and Bows of Classical and Modern Times, Together with Biographical Notices and Portraits of the Most Famous Performers on these Instruments (London: Haynes, Foucher & Co., 1892), 218. 54 instruments of any type), and he claimed “… mon moyen nouveau permet d’augmenter le volume d’air renfermé dans l’instrument et par conséquent d’en augmenter les proportions” (… my new method allows for an increase in the volume of air contained within the instrument, and consequently for augmenting the proportions).81 With this wavy design, Sulot hoped to make an instrument of a small size, yet with a large surface area. The undulations in the top and bottom plates increase the overall surface area of the instrument without increasing the size of the body, which would make it more difficult to play. He suggested that this new design was applicable to instruments of the violin family, as well as to guitars and recorders.82 Unfortunately, the increased stiffness of the plates as a result of the wavy wood actually stifles the sound production, and tone quality suffers.

The viola NMM 14529 on display at the National Music Museum, well-preserved and with original fittings, is an example of Sulot’s patented undulating design. The wood of both the entire top and bottom is wavy, giving a corrugated appearance, and it does not have the arching seen in traditional violin-family instruments. The top is made of two pieces of narrow-grain spruce, the bottom is two pieces of maple, and the neck and head are also maple. The fingerboard above the C string is beveled to reduce string rattling, a feature seen on most modern instruments but which was relatively new at the time of this viola’s construction. Aside from the undulations of the plates, the set-up of Sulot’s viola resembles that of traditional violas. The measurements of

NMM 14529 are as follows:

Back length: 389 mm (15-5/16”)

Upper bout width: 182 mm

81 Rene Pierre, “Facteurs et marchands de musique de l’est de la france,” accessed February 25, 2013, http://facteursetmarchandsdemusique.blogspot.com/2013/02/nicolas-sulot-1780-1858-inventeur-de.html. A copy of the original patent can be viewed here. 82 National Music Museum, “NMM 14529,” collection display information card. 55

Center bout width: 122 mm

Lower bout width: 228 mm

Upper rib height: 32-35 mm

Center rib height: 33-35mm

Lower rib height: 33-35 mm

Total viola length: 636 mm

Stop length: 208 mm

Vibrating string length: 355 mm

Neck length (bottom of nut to ribs): 144 mm

Figure 4.5: Sulot’s patent viola (1828), NMM 14529.

Alfred Stelzner

With the publication of his Lehre von den Tonempfindungen in 1862, Hermann von

Helmoltz transformed the study of acoustics and sound, and Dr. Alfred Stelzner, a mathematician and physicist, was undoubtedly influenced by Helmoltz’s work. Stelzner lived and worked several decades after the other violin makers discussed in this paper, and his instruments seem to be one of the last attempts at improving the violin through scientific means in the nineteenth century. Born November 29, 1852, in Hamburg, Stelzner was educated in mathematics and the sciences, as well as the violin and piano, from a young age. After working a short apprenticeship at the Ritter Machine Tool factory in Altona, he studied engineering at Polytechnische Schule zu

Hannover from 1874 to 1876 and later attended Heidelberg University, earning a doctoral degree in mathematics and physics.83 Immediately upon finishing his degree, Stelzner appears to have devoted himself entirely to redesigning the violin rather than developing a stable professional career in his field of study. After first building a violin in the traditional form, he applied for a patent on August 9, 1891, under the title Configuration of the Resonating Bodies in Stringed

Instruments (German Imperial Patent Office, No. 69012, Class 51), which discussed an innovative body design for the violin, viola, cello, bass, and violotta, an instrument of Stelzner’s own invention. The violotta and the cellone (not mentioned in this patent) were both created by

Stelzner to fill out gaps in the orchestral sound between instruments, much like Vuillaume’s octobass and contralto.

Stelzner’s 1891 patent makes several suggestions about improving the sound box of string instruments. He slightly alters the outline of the body, changes the shape of the blocks joining the top and back plates, graduates the rib height, and suggests a different shape for the f- holes. The body design of Stelzner’s reformed instruments is based upon elliptical shapes rather

83 James Christensen, “Dr. Stelzner’s Original Instruments,” The Strad 112/1338 (2001): 1120. 57 than circles, as he believed ellipses would allow sound waves to “reinforce each other reciprocally rather than creating interference, thus allowing the vibrating air molecules to develop the maximal energy.”84 The end blocks and ribs were designed as parabolas, again to reinforce sound waves, and the f-holes were made bigger to amplify sound production. The result is an instrument that does not drastically differ from traditional string instruments in appearance, but whose acoustic structure is radically changed. No specific mathematic calculations were given in the patent, perhaps to prevent infringement on his design.

Production of these instruments commenced in Wiesbaden before the patent had even been approved, with Robert Wiedemann as head of construction, and Stelzner must have believed his instruments capable of achieving widespread success, as several other similar patents were submitted in Switzerland, Great Britain, and the United States.85 The workshop later relocated to Dresden, where Augustus Paulus was placed in charge of building Stelzner’s instruments. The instruments were manufactured rapidly by a number of apprentices, and

Christensen estimates that about 330 were made in total.86 Stelzner tirelessly promoted his instruments, selling them in several countries around Europe, as well as the United States, and employing the testimonials of a number of celebrated musicians, including Emile Sauret, David

Popper, Fritz Kreisler, August Wilhelmj, Jules Massenet, and Eugene Ysaÿe, who wrote, “Your instruments are desirable for the power and beauty of their tone, and there is no doubt of the advance you have achieved through the originality of your construction methods.”87

84 James Christensen, “Dr. Alfred Stelzner: Pioneer in Violin Acoustics,” Internationale Draeseke Gesellschaft, last modified November 2011, accessed February 20, 2013, http://www.draeseke.org/stelzner/pioneer.htm. 85 Christensen, “Dr. Alfred Stelzner: Pioneer in Violin Acoustics,” Internationale Draeseke Gesellschaft, http://www.draeseke.org/stelzner/pioneer.htm. 86 Ibid. 87 Christensen, “Dr. Stelzner’s Original Instruments,” 1122. 58

Stelzner even composed original music specifically to showcase the capabilities and range of sound available in his family of patented instruments, as well as their potential for use in orchestral settings. His seven-act opera Rübezahl, for which he wrote both music and libretto, was completed in 1902 and premiered at the Dresden Court Theater; his one-act opera Swatowit's

Ende was performed at the Court Theater in Kassel in 1903; and he also wrote the operas Cecilia and Kinder des Todes.88 In addition, Max Schillings wrote for solo violotta in his opera Der

Pfeifertag, and Felix Draeseke included a part for the same instrument in his Quintet in A major.

Intended to serve as an intermediary instrument between viola and cello, Stelzner’s violotta (Fig. 4.6) was tuned in fifths an octave below the violin, was played with the same technique as that used for the viola, and its music was supposed to be written in treble clef sounding an octave below. As outlined in the 1891 patent, the body is designed with parabolic and elliptical geometry, with ribs that are tapered to be wider near the center of the instrument, forming a parabolic shape at the top bouts, and the extended f-holes are cut with leaf ornamentations at each tip, increasing their vibrating ability. The top plate of the violotta consists of two pieces of quarter-cut spruce, the back is made of two-piece maple, and the neck and head are maple, as well. The rest of the fittings appear to be the same as those of a traditional viola.

The measurements of NMM 6719 are as follows:

Back length: 422 mm

Upper bout width: 225 mm

Center bout width: 148 mm

Lower bout width: 275 mm

Upper rib height: 44-60 mm

Center rib height: 60-62 mm

88 Christensen, “Dr. Alfred Stelzner: Pioneer in Violin Acoustics,” http://www.draeseke.org/stelzner/pioneer.htm. 59

Lower rib height: 56-62 mm

Total violotta length: 709 mm

Stop length: 236 mm

Vibrating string length: 407 mm

Neck length (bottom of nut to ribs): 164 mm

Figure 4.6: Front and side views of Stelzner’s violotta (1896), NMM 6719.

Of all the instruments discussed in this paper, Stelzner’s seem to have achieved the widest success in adoption by musicians and composers. In 1894, just two years after his innovative instruments were presented at the 1892 Columbian Exposition in Chicago, however,

Stelzner’s firm declared bankruptcy, and though he was able to continue production in 1899, the business eventually failed, and Stelzner took his own life in 1806.89 Fourteen years after

Stelzner’s death Apian Bennewitz commented upon the reception of his instruments, saying,

89 David Shoenbaum, The Violin: A Social History of the World’s Most Versatile Instrument (New York: Norton, 2013), 88. 60

“Time has shown that this kind of instrument has fallen into obscurity. It has been impossible to introduce it in spite of all the good reports. The configuration of tensions between the back and the belly created by the high middle ribs created a characteristic tone that had no relation to the ideal tone we are accustomed to – free, Italian, agreeable. And so these instruments, interesting though they may be, have only a curiosity value.”90

90 Christensen, “Dr. Alfred Stelzner: Pioneer in Violin Acoustics,” http://www.draeseke.org/stelzner/pioneer.htm. 61

CHAPTER FIVE INNOVATION IN THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY-FIRST CENTURIES

Continuing Innovation While many were praised by musicians, composers, and acousticians for their quality of sound, playability, and ease of production, the innovative violin-family instruments of the nineteenth century discussed in previous chapters all eventually fell out of use, becoming novelties in museums and auction houses rather than fixtures in concert halls. Whether these new instruments deviated too far from the expected aesthetics of the orchestral setting, were unable to blend with the tone of traditional instruments in ensemble settings, simply did not succeed in responding to the needs of musicians, or required an overhaul of conventional practices, the traditional violin seemed steadfast in its resistance to innovation even in light of the Industrial

Revolution. Though several of these instruments even had original pieces composed for them, like Vuillaume's arpeggione and Stelzner's violotta, it was difficult to incorporate them into existing musical structures. The search for a modern violin form based in scientific ideals was reignited in the mid-twentieth century, however, as scientists and musicians continued to work toward the construction of modernized forms employing the latest technology and acoustic research to improve existing instruments.

Carleen Maley Hutchins and the Catgut Acoustical Society

Carleen Maley Hutchins, born in 1911 in Springfield, Massachusetts, was to become one of the most influential figures in modern violin making. After studying biology at Cornell

University and becoming a high school science teacher, Hutchins began learning to play the viola. Finding her purchased viola unsatisfactory and frustrating to play, she decided to build her

62 own. By 1949 Hutchins was working with the Swiss luthier Karl A. Berger in New York City’s

Steinway Building, and that same year she was introduced to Frederick A. Saunders (1875-

1963), chairman of the Harvard physics department, member of the National Academy of

Sciences, President of the American Acoustical Society, and an amateur violinist, who began studying and experimenting with violin acoustics in the 1930s. Saunders commissioned Hutchins to construct experimental instruments for his research.91 After studying the work of Felix Savart,

Hutchins experimented with the use of removable and interchangeable top plates, as well as flat- bodied violins and violas. Together, Hutchins and Saunders manipulated nearly every aspect of the violin and viola sound box in order to understand the acoustic structures and the possibilities for improvement. They modified the shape and placement of the f-holes, changed the rib height, purfling, bass bar and sound post location, and measured modes of vibration in the internal air mass and on the wood itself, and recorded the loudness curve of the instruments in their different ranges.92 Her work with Saunders not only educated Hutchins in the field of acoustics but equipped her with skills to perform effective and reliable scientific experiments. Their collaborative efforts also led to Hutchins's first, and perhaps most significant, acoustic discovery: a technique for electronically measuring tap-tone frequencies in free violin plates. This has traditionally been done by tapping the top and bottom plates with knuckles, a process that guides the luthier in properly thinning the wood to achieve optimal tone production. Hutchins discovered that by clamping the free plates at specific nodes and vibrating them electronically, an oscilloscope could measure frequencies with greater efficiency and precision.93

91 David Schoenbaum, The Violin: A Social History of the World’s Most Versatile Instrument (New York: Noron, 2013), 90. 92 Paul R. Laird, “The Life and Work of Carleen Maley Hutchins,” Catgut Acoustical Society, accessed February 28, 2013, http://www.catgutacoustical.org/people/cmh/index.htm. 93 Clive Greated, “Hutchins, Carleen (Maley),” in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/43476 (accessed February 28, 2013). 63

Around 1959 Hutchins became acquainted with Rembert Wurlitzer (1904-1963) and

Fernando Sacconi (1895-1973), two famous instrument makers and restorers, who would be influential figures in her lutherie career. Wurlitzer, in a 1959 recommendation letter for the

Guggenheim Fellowship (which she was awarded), praised Hutchins and her free plate tuning method, writing, “As far as I know, the ideas of Mrs. Hutchins are unique and I believe fully worthwhile exploring. Basically they take the form of measuring the pitch response of the upper and lower plates of an instrument at various points and of then correlating these figures with the various variations in constructions of the instrument . . . Such measurement may quite likely lead to a scientific approach to the making of superior bowed instruments.”94 Sacconi advised

Hutchins on violin making techniques and loaned her tools and patterns for her work, and allowed her to study and experiment with the plates of Stradivarius instruments.

Hutchins’s most famous experimental instruments were designed in 1957 at the request of American composer Henry Brant, known for his “acoustically spatial music.”95 Brant envisioned a set of seven violins graduating in size, an idea which Hutchins, in conjunction with members of the Catgut Acoustical Society, adapted to create the Violin Octet, also known as the

New Violin Family. This octet of violins was intended to provide a homogenous tone quality and expand the range of the ensemble, to be played as solo instruments, as an octet, blended with electronic instruments, or used in augmenting the string section of a symphony orchestra.96 The violin octet is still played professionally today by members of the Hutchins Consort, based in

Southern California.97 This project, along with many other similar experiments, reflects

94 Laird, “The Life and Work of Carleen Maley Hutchins,” http://www.catgutacoustical.org/people/cmh/index.htm. 95 Margaret Downie Banks, “Graphite, Gruyére, and a Pig Named Susie . . . Carleen Hutchins’ Instruments and Archives Donated to the Museum," National Music Museum Newsletter 30/1 (2003): 4-5. 96 Carleen Maley Hutchins, “New Violin Family (Violin Octet),” in Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/51569 (accessed March 1, 2013). 97 Banks, “Graphite, Gruyére, and a Pig Named Susie,” 4-5. 64

Hutchins’s priority for improving the existing form of the violin, believing instruments should adapt to the lives of modern string players. She was adamant that the use of current technology could be applied to produce string instruments of the highest quality, stating, “It is possible for violin makers today, using technical information that’s been developed over the last 30 years, to make fine violins every time. There is no need to pay millions of dollars to get a good instrument.”98 She also strongly believed in sharing information among the community of makers and scientists, rather than hoarding her trade secrets. With a cover story on violin physics in the Scientific American, four honorary doctorates, and two Guggenheim Fellowships,

Hutchins was perhaps the most influential figure in the renaissance of violin experimentation that began in late twentieth century and carries on today.

Hutchins's experiences with Saunders, Wurlitzer, and Sacconi, among others, revealed a need for collaborative research in instrument making among scientists, musicians, and luthiers.

In 1963 Hutchins and Saunders co-founded the Catgut Acoustical Society, with the aim to

“increase and diffuse the knowledge of musical acoustics and instruments, and to promote its practical applications”; the society today has today expanded to a membership around the world and the publication of a peer-reviewed journal called the Catgut Acoustical Society Journal.99

The eclectic careers of the first members of the Catgut Acoustical Society (CAS) – instrument makers, performers, musicologists, physicists, engineers, chemists, and composers – represented the group's desire for interdisciplinary collaboration and a scientifically informed perspective on instrument making. Hutchins, along with founding members John C. Schelleng, and Robert E.

Fryxell, had finally established an arena for intensive discussion and research on innovative instrument making. John C. Schelleng (1892-1979), an amateur cellist and former research

98 Schoenbaum, The Violin, 96. 99 Catgut Acoustical Society, “Information about the Catgut Acoustical Society,” (accessed March 1, 2013), http://www.catgutacoustical.org/casabout.htm. 65 director at Bell Telephone laboratories, who graduated from Cornell University with a degree in electrical engineering, is best known for his article published in the Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America titled “The Violin as a Circuit.” Robert E. Fryxell (1924-1986), who had a chemistry doctorate from the University of Chicago and worked for General Electric, was interested in researching wood moisture, varnish, and bow hair.100 The group quickly expanded in size and began working in association with the Acoustical Society of America, establishing itself as a serious interdisciplinary organization generating solid scholarship in the field of lutherie and acoustics.

The pioneering work of Carleen Maley Hutchins and the influence of the Catgut

Acoustical Society soon stirred a number of other collaborative research projects between physicists, acousticians, musicians, and luthiers. The Violin Society of America (VSA), established in 1973 and described as “a non-profit organization created for the purpose of promoting the art and science of making, repairing and preserving stringed musical instruments and their bows,” has served as a platform for highly specialized research into the acoustics and construction of instruments of the violin family, both traditional and innovative.101 Producing numerous publications, including The Journal of the Violin Society of America, the VSA Papers, and a regular newsletter, the VSA has become one of the most prestigious string-related organizations in the United States. The VSA partnered with the Catgut Acoustical Society in

2004 to found the CAS Forum, with the aim of promoting knowledge of musical acoustics and its practical applications.102 With the growth of such organizations as the Catgut Acoustical

Society and the Violin Society of America, it is clear that acoustical research and the

100 Laird, “The Life and Work of Carleen Maley Hutchins,” http://www.catgutacoustical.org/people/cmh/index.htm. 101 The Violin Society of America, “About the Violin Society of America,” http://www.vsa.to/ (accessed March 2, 2013). 102 Ibid. 66 development of innovative instruments are becoming greater priorities for contemporary luthiers.

Unlike in the nineteenth century, contemporary innovation in instrument building seems to belong to the arena of collaborative academic (or quasi-academic) societies. A new generation of violin makers has emerged in the twenty-first century, informed by historical models of the past and encouraged by rapidly developing technology in acoustics and production techniques.

Today, there appears to be a reemergence of the desire to improve the violin family, expanding upon the work of nineteenth-century innovators, where experimental violin makers are

“legitimately challenging longstanding notions of what makes a great acoustic instrument, and whether past masters’ work represents a sonic pinnacle or merely the best that could be achieved with traditional materials.”103 Two of the most famous names in twenty-first century lutherie,

Joseph Curtin and David Rivinus, are discussed in the next two sections, providing a look into the future of violin making and the areas of experimentation being pioneered today.

Joseph Curtin

Born in 1953 in Toronto, Curtin is a 2005 MacArthur Fellow who currently works in Ann

Arbor, Michigan. He began learning to make violins in 1977 under Otto Erdesz and also spent time working with Hutchins, who sparked his interest in acoustical research. In 1985 Curtin set up a shop with Gregg Alf, where they built a solid reputation making traditional string instruments played by such famous musicians as Yehudi Menuhin, Ruggiero Ricci, and Elmar

Oliveria, among others.104 Their business partnership ended after twelve years, and Curtin

103 Andrew C. Revkin, “String Theory: New Approaches to Instrument Design,” The New York Times, November 28, 2006 (accessed March 1, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/science/28acou.html. 104 Schoenbaum, The Violin, 97. 67 opened his own workshop, where he began experimenting with different materials and body shapes in his violins and violas in the 1990s.105

Moving away from constructing replicas of old Cremonese instruments, Curtin wanted to learn the physics of the violin and began collaborating with University of Michigan physicist

Gabriel Weinreich and Charles Besnainou, an engineer at the Laboratoire d’Acoustique Musicale in Paris.106 In his search to understand what makes a good violin, Weinreich developed the theory of Directional Tone Color (DTC) to explain why even the best violins, with the best equipment available, produce a meager and unsatisfying tone when amplified through microphones and loudspeakers, a factor that certainly was not a concern in the nineteenth century. In describing this theory, he explains that “the human voice and most orchestral instruments send out sound which is either equally strong in all directions or, if it does have a directional pattern – which happens especially at high frequencies – that pattern changes only relatively slowly as the frequency is varied. In the case of string instruments, however, not only are they strongly directional, but the pattern of their directionality changes very rapidly with frequency… This property – which is the essence of what I call ‘directional tone color’ – is especially important when one listens to the music in an enclosed space, as one usually does, so that the original sound beacons are perceived as reflections from varying points in the room. In fact, DTC may be one reason vibrato is used so universally by violinists – as compared to wind players, whose instruments generally lack directional tone color.”107 Recognizing the growing popularity of electric violins, used especially in popular music, Curtin and Weinreich have worked together to build an electric violin with a sound comparable to a good acoustic instrument. With Weinreich writing computer programs to measure and alter violin tones and

105 To see Curtin’s innovative instruments, visit www.JosephCurtinStudios.com. 106 Schoenbaum, The Violin, 105. 107 Joseph Curtin, “The Violin Finally Speaks,” The Strad 111/1320 (2000): 390-91. 68

Curtin providing the craftsmanship, the two periodically meet in a workshop-laboratory to discuss their continued research into the topic.108 These collaborations have resulted in the creation of a “reciprocal bow,” consisting of a combination of a computer, amplifier, loudspeaker, and phono cartridge that allows a violin to be played for testing purposes without the need for a living player.109

Curtin’s work with Charles Besnainou has led to a breakthrough in the use of alternative materials in the construction of the violin. Besnainou, a lute maker who first began testing the use of wood veneer and carbon fiber in his own instruments in 1985, was intrigued by the durability, light weight, and resistance to humidity offered by the materials. Curtin had previously used small pieces of composite veneer to fortify the sound posts of his instruments, and he wondered if Besnainou’s technique might be useful on a larger scale. In 1998 they began working together to develop carbon fiber composite violins and violas, comprised of sheets of wood veneer, carbon fiber, epoxy resin, and foam.110 The use of wood veneer is especially appealing to many luthiers; not only is it more ecologically sustainable because it uses less solid wood, but it is also easier and cheaper to produce, it reduces the overall weight of the entire instrument, and the finished product looks identical to a traditional violin. Shortages in the spruce, maple, and ebony used for conventional violin making have made such ecologically sustainable methods increasingly necessary for makers today. Composite wood veneer and carbon fiber bows, though not made by Curtin and Besnainou, have also recently entered the market as a cost-efficient alternative to solid wood bows. Curtin is also experimenting with the use of lightweight balsa wood with a spruce veneer. Other innovative projects by Curtin include

108 Nick Shaves, “An Instrument Maker and a Scientist Talk about their Passion for Physics,” The Strad (December 2007): 104. 109 Schoenbaum, The Violin, 105. 110 Joseph Curtin, “Space Age Stradivari,” The Strad 110/1308 (1999): 377. 69 the ultralight violin, which is remarkably similar in appearance to François Chanot’s guitar- violin, with an almost identical bridge and sound hole designs, and the digital violin, which turns violin sound into digital-filter files for use with Weinreich’s computer programs. Curtin realizes that the application of such technology to a cultural icon like the violin may make many traditionalists uneasy, saying, “there’s a kind of a nervousness that the mystery will go out of it, the bubble will be pricked and it’ll all just be ordinary. It’ll be technology. There’s almost a cultural sense that the violin is the last repository of mystery. The fact that we don’t understand the violin adds to its allure.”111 Curtin’s approach to innovative violin making is pragmatic in its search for ecological sustainability, cost efficiency, and technological adaptation. Violins made of alternative materials have proven to be the most effective innovation in violin making, but it remains to be seen whether they will become fixtures in performance settings.

David Rivinus

David Rivinus began making instruments in the early 1970s under luthier Thomas Smith, before becoming apprentice to Hans Weisshaar in Hollywood, from whom Rivinus learned the art of restoration. Rivinus opened his own shop in Glendale, California, with Thomas Metzler in

1979 but has since left to pursue acoustical research and innovative violin making techniques. He now works in Portland, Oregon, where he is best known for his ergonomically designed violas.

His work has been featured in a full-page spread in the New York Times, the National Music

Museum commissioned an original instrument from him, a full-length documentary has been made about his viola making, and his innovative instruments are played by professionals in the

San Francisco Symphony, the Cincinnati Symphony, the Houston Symphony, the Atlanta

111 Revkin, “String Theory,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/science/28acou.html?_r=1&. 70

Symphony, the Indianapolis Symphony, the New Mexico Symphony, and the Netherlands

Symphony, among others. Rivinus’s instruments have perhaps received the most attention from musicians, who use them in performance settings. Some of his work looks more like surrealist pieces of art than actual instruments, while some look more conventional. Yet in all his work

Rivinus strives to improve tonal evenness and enhance the range of sound, to make ergonomic adjustments, and to make these instruments capable of use in symphony orchestra settings.112

Rivinus is specifically concerned with the ergonomics of the viola, which is notorious for causing repetitive-motion injuries in its players. Discussing his original design for an asymmetrical, ergonomic viola, Rivinus explains, “A violist with chronic back trouble or left hand tendinitis already knows that playing a huge, traditionally shaped instrument is the wrong way to meet sonority demands. But suppose a violin maker starts with an undersized viola that is easy to play but is also characteristically weak sounding, then stretches it in places that don't interfere with the mechanics of playing … And the only thing sacrificed is visual symmetry.

Does the shape change do anything to the sound? No … Because the bass-bar is glued off-center to one side of the belly, and the sound post is nudged – again off-center – against the back, sound waves emitted by bowed stringed instruments (especially their bellies) aren't symmetrical even when the instruments themselves are.”113 Applying this concept to his Pellegrina viola model

(Fig. 5.1), Rivinus has built an instrument intended to reduce the epidemic among violists of tendinitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and back and shoulder orthopedic problems. With the

Pellegrina viola Rivinus wanted to make a viola with a larger vibrating surface and greater interior acoustic resonance space without making the string length too long for comfort. In order

112 David Rivinus, “Vision – Innovation – Acoustics,” (accessed March 2, 2013), http://www.rivinus- instruments.com/Welcome.htm. 113 David Rivinus, “Design Concepts: Shape Changes on String Instruments,” (accessed March 2, 2013), http://www.rivinus-instruments.com/DesignConcepts.htm. 71 for a viola to achieve the same proportions between tone production and size as the violin, it would have to be considerably longer and wider than a conventional viola, making it almost impossible to play on the shoulder. Carleen Maley Hutchins, in her Violin Octet, built a viola of these larger proportions and suggested that it be played between the knees, like a cello.114 With the Pellegrina, Rivinus tackles this problem with a different perspective. The upper left and lower right bouts of his innovative viola are radically extended, the ribs are slightly graduated, the f-holes are asymmetrical, the tailpiece has been shifted toward the bass side, the lower corners of the treble side have been omitted, and the scroll is also curved asymmetrically. The set-up has been modified to accommodate the hands of an average-sized violist, with the string spacing made smaller and the neck carver thinner. The bridge has also been redesigned, again with a shape similar to that used on Chanot’s guitar-violins, to reduce the amount of non- structuring dampening wood. Finally, two additional sound holes have been added to the top plate, allowing for greater vibratory power with the larger surface area of this viola. Because the asymmetrical body of the Pellegrina model is actually larger than that of a traditional viola,

Rivinus substituted carbon fiber for an ebony fingerboard and used balsa wood for the interior structure. Like Curtin, Rivinus recognizes the importance of developing sustainable, ecologically-sound violin making techniques. Ebony is becoming especially difficult and expensive to find, a problem made worse by the fact that much of this wood comes from countries such as Madagascar, Ceylon, and India, where ecological protection is often not a priority for wood vendors.115

114 Arian Sheets, “If Salvador Dali Played the Viola… Art Meets Ergonomics in a Distinctive Design,” National Music Museum Newsletter 32/4 (2005): 4-5. 115 Rivinus, “Design Concepts,” http://www.rivinus-instruments.com/DesignConcepts.htm. 72

Figure 5.1: Rivinus’s Pellegrina viola

Other innovative viola designs created by Rivinus include the Riviola model, which is a smaller ergonomic viola derived from the Pellegrina, yet much more similar to that of a conventional viola. The lower right corner has been removed to allow for easier string navigation, and the neck, fingerboard, and tailpiece have been shifted slightly to the left side of the instrument. A six-string Riviola is also available, with the same slightly asymmetrical body.

Although violists are most likely to suffer injuries from their instruments, many violinists are also afflicted with tendinitis and other orthopedic issues. For this reason, Rivinus has constructed an ergonomic violin called the Maximilian, designed to alleviate stress in the player’s left shoulder.116 Its asymmetrical appearance is striking, with the upper right bout reduced in size to allow the left hand to reach the upper registers and the lower right corner absent, while the upper left bout is drastically enlarged to account for the lost resonating space in the right bout. It seems that musicians may be more willing to adapt an innovative design if their career is in danger due

116 Rivinus, “Design Concepts,” http://www.rivinus-instruments.com/DesignConcepts.htm. 73 to instrument-related injury; Rivinus now makes his living almost entirely through the sale of his innovative violins and violas and they appear to be quite popular with professional string players.

Conclusion

While many innovative violin designs have been promoted since the nineteenth century, few have been adopted by musicians or successfully incorporated into performance settings. The

Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century in Europe inspired a number of attempts to improve and modernize the violin from its conventional form, and results of numerous juries, trials, fairs, and exhibitions have shown that many of these instruments had the potential to significantly alter the standard violin. Why, then, were these instruments so quickly forgotten, and how can innovative makers today succeed in the conservative, tradition-steeped violin trade?

Musicians are, understandably, emotionally attached to their instruments and unwilling to learn new playing techniques to accommodate different instrument designs. The conservative atmosphere of the symphony orchestra also does not encourage exploration with new instruments, as homogeneity in tone and appearance is expected. When a violist for a major symphony orchestra first brought David Rivinus’s Pellegrina viola to a rehearsal, recalls Rivinus,

“one of the violists in the section took a look at it and screamed.”117 Despite such resistance, however, luthiers today are still testing the boundaries of the instrument to achieve a better sound, as well as to improve playability, environmental sustainability, and production costs. The twenty-first century is seeing greater acceptance of innovative designs, perhaps in reaction to the

117 Karin Bijsterveld and Marten Schulp, “Breaking into a World of Perfection: Innovation in Today’s Classical Musical Instruments,” Social Studies of Science 34/5 (2004): 656-57. 74 soaring prices of old Cremonese instruments and their replicas,118 as well as recognition of the importance of ecologically sustainable methods. The use of alternative materials such as wood veneer, carbon fiber, graphite, and balsa may soon become imperative, if the violin trade is to continue producing affordable, high-quality instruments. It seems that these materials would be especially effective for use in student instruments, which are notoriously harsh sounding and difficult to play, often discouraging beginner students. Building student violins to be cheaper, yet better sounding and more playable, would certainly benefit the field of music education as a whole. Ergonomics also seems to be a successful avenue for innovative makers, as David

Rivinus’s work has shown, as professional musicians seek to extend their playing careers and protect their bodies from injury.

Several common themes can be observed in the instruments discussed throughout these five chapters: acoustics and tone quality, ergonomics, production costs, and augmenting the sound of orchestral groups. Nearly every violin maker was concerned with tone improvement in their innovative designs, and many of them collaborated with physicists, acousticians, and engineers in order to build an instrument in accord with the most current acoustic knowledge available. From Félix Savart to Joseph Curtin, makers have continually looked to science to inform their understanding of the violin. While many makers have altered the body shape of their instruments to make them more comfortable and easy to play, several makers have also moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing comfort for greater sound projection, as seen in Vuillaume’s octobass and contralto. Vuillaume, Hutchins, and Stelzner were also interested in filling in gaps in the orchestra sound, augmenting the ranges between different groups of instruments. This concern does not seem so crucial today, perhaps because electronic technology has provided the

118 David Schoenbaum, “Endgame in the Violin Trade?” The New York Times, February 11, 2001, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/arts/music-nearing-endgame-in-the-violin-trade.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (accessed March 2, 2013). 75 means to produce almost any sound imaginable and contemporary composers are increasingly willing to incorporate novel instrumentation in their music, and because there is naturally much overlap in the range of the traditional instruments of the violin family. Finally, nineteenth- century makers during the Industrial Revolution were the first to attempt mass production of musical instruments, resulting in the ability to produce violins more cheaply and efficiently.

Today, makers are still concerned with the production costs of their instruments, especially as the materials needed for traditional construction methods are increasingly difficult to find.

The instrument making process of nineteenth-century makers differs in many ways from that of makers today, as well. The twentieth century saw the institutionalization of professional and academic societies for the purpose of promoting acoustical research and innovative instrument building. These instrument makers and acousticians often view the work of these societies as crucial to the development and continuation of their disciplines. Contemporary makers are also increasingly interested in the application of new technology and electronic amplification, making their instruments compatible with other electronic instruments and making them more appealing to a younger generation of musicians familiar with computer-generated music. Ecological concerns are also a new issue for contemporary makers, who must contend with declining organic resources, exportation difficulties, and rising wood prices.

The instruments discussed in this paper, from the nineteenth century to the present day, have shown innovative violin making to be a collaborative process, with luthiers (working in a wide range of instruments), scientists, and players pooling their specialized knowledge and communicating their needs in order to build a better violin. Surprisingly, the influence of composers has played an insignificant role in the development of these new forms.

Twenty-first-century makers must contend with the tremendous history and iconography of the violin, and seek new ways to market their innovations to conservative musicians who are strongly attached to their instruments. Karin Bjisterveld and Marten Schulp suggest that contemporary makers, “next to creating new settings for or reducing the spectacle of their instruments,” can “push tradition closer to innovation,” or rewrite the history of violin making and its masters in order to legitimize new innovations.119 In searching for the ideal violin sound, adapted for modern performers and audiences, makers must navigate between the iconic history of the violin and the rapidly changing culture of the twenty-first century.

119 Bijsterveld and Schulp, “Breaking into a World of Perfection,” 668-70. 77

APPENDIX A

DIAGRAM OF TRADITIONAL VIOLIN AND BOW

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahrens, Christian. “Technological Innovations in Nineteenth-Century Instrument Making and Their Consequences.” Musical Quarterly 80/2 (1996): 332-39.

Bachmann, Alberto, and Frederick Herman Martens. An Encyclopedia of the Violin. New York: D. Appleton, 1925.

Baines, Anthony. European and American Musical Instruments. London: Chancellor, 1966.

———. Musical Instruments through the Ages. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1969.

Banks, Margaret Downie. “A Physicist’s Unfulfilled Prophecy: Alfred Stelzner’s Experiment in Violin Reform.” America’s Shrine to Music Museum Newsletter 26/2 (1999): 4-5.

———. “Graphite, Gruyére, and a Pig named Susie . . . Carleen Hutchins' Instruments and Archives Donated to the Museum.” National Music Museum Newsletter 30/1 (2003): 4-5.

Barnett, H. G. Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953.

Baumgartner, Roland. “Nicolas Lupot, His Contemporaries, and Pupils: Violin Making in Paris from 1770-1835.” Journal of the Violin Society of America 18/1 (2000): 45-87.

Beament, James. The Violin Explained: Components, Mechanism, and Sound. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.

Beare, Charles. “Violin Expertise: How Can We Be Sure Who Made What?” Journal of the Violin Society of America 12/2 (1992): 45-65.

Bell, James F., R.W.B. Stephens, and Murray Campbell. “Félix Savart.” In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/24649 (accessed January 31, 2013).

Berlioz, Hector. Orchestration Treatise: A Translation and Commentary. Translated by Hugh MacDonald. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Besseler, Heinrich. Zum Problem der Tenorgeige. Musikalische Gegenwartsfragen, Heft 1. Heidelberg: Muller-Thiergarten, 1949.

Bijsterveld, Karin, and Marten Schulp. “Breaking into a World of Perfection: Innovation in Today’s Classical Musical Instruments.” Social Studies of Science 34/5 (2004): 649-74.

Bijsterveld, Karin, and Peter Frank Peters. “Composing Claims on Musical Instrument Development: A Science and Technology Studies Contribution.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 35/2 (2010): 106-21.

Bone, Philip James. The Guitar and Mandolin: Biographies of Celebrated Players and Composers. London: Schott, 1972.

Boyden, David D. The History of Violin Playing from Its Origins to 1761: And Its Relationship to the Violin and Violin Music. Oxford, London: Clarendon, 1990.

Button, Stewart. The Guitar in England 1800-1924. London: Garland, 1989.

C.F. Martin & Company. “About Martin.” Accessed February 22, 2013. Www.martinguitar.com/about-martin.html.

Catgut Acoustical Society. “Information about the Catgut Acoustical Society.” Accessed March 1, 2013. Http://www.catgutacoustical.org/casabout.htm.

Campos, Rémy, ed., and Marianne de Mazières with Bernard Camurat, trans. Violins, Vuillaume: A Great French Violin Maker of the Nineteenth Century (1798-1875). Exhibition Catalog 23 October 1998 – 31 January 1999. Paris: Cité de la musique/Musée de la musique, 1998.

Christensen, James. “Dr. Alfred Stelzner: Pioneer in Violin Acoustics.” Internationale Draeseke Gesellschaft. Last modified November 2011. Accessed February 20, 2013. Http://www.draeseke.org/stelzner/pioneer.htm.

———. “Dr. Stelzner’s Original Instruments,” The Strad 112/1338 (October 2001): 112-27.

Clements, Cary. “Augustus Stroh and the Famous Stroh Violin, or, ‘The Inventors of Abnormalities in the Field of Violin-Building Have Not Yet Become Extinct.’” Experimental Musical Instruments 10/4: 8.

———. “Historical Musical Instrument Patents: Four Patents Relating to String Instruments.” Experimental Musical Instruments 11/3 (1996): 16.

Cohen, Albert. Music in the French Royal Academy of Sciences: A Study of the Evolution of Musical Thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981.

Crary, Jonathon. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the 19th Century. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1992.

Cremer, Lothar. The Physics of the Violin. Translated by John S. Allen. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1984.

Curtin, Joseph. “Innovation in Violin Making.” Paper presented at the International Symposium on Musical Acoustics, June 26-July 1, 1998.

———. “Space Age Stradivari.” The Strad 110/1308 (1999): 374-79.

———. “Subject to Change: Innovation Among Violinmakers.” Strings Magazine 20/9 (April 2006): 63-9.

———. “The Violin Finally Speaks.” The Strad 111/1320 (2000): 390-94.

Dunham, Arthur Louis. The Industrial Revolution in France, 1815-1848. New York: Exposition Press, 1955.

Fleming, James M. The Fiddle Fancier’s Guide: A Manual of Information Regarding Violins, Violas, Basses, and Bows of Classical and Modern Times, Together with Biographical Notices and Portraits of the Most Famous Performers on these Instruments. London: Haynes, Foucher & Co., 1892.

Fulton, William. “Making Violins with Bent Plates.” Journal of the Violin Society of America 13/2 (1993): 123-44.

Gaugé, Aimé. “‘La Lutherie’ at Mirecourt.” Journal of the Violin Society of America 3/3 (1977): 68.

Gétreau, Florence. Aux Origines du muse de la Musique: Les Collections instrumentales du Conservatoire de Paris 1793-1993. Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 1996.

Giraud, Alain. “A Thwarted Revolution?” The Strad 115/1373 (2004): 898-905.

Greated, Clive. “Hutchins, Carleen (Maley).” In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/43476 (accessed February 28, 2013).

Gregori, Gianpaolo. “The Art of Violin Making: From the Baroque to the Present.” Journal of the Violin Society of America 13/2 (1993): 198-214.

Hanson, Alice M. Musical life in Biedermeier Vienna. London: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Henley, William. Universal Dictionary of Violin and Bow Makers. Brighton Sussex, England: ‘Amati’ Publishing, 1973.

Heron-Allen, Edward. Violin-Making: A Historical and Practical Guide. New York: Dover,

2005. Originally published as Violin Making: As It Was and Is: Being a Historical, Theoretical, and Practical Treatise on the Science and Art of Violin-Making, for the Use of Violin Makers and Players, Amateur and Professional. London: Ward, Lock, 1885.

Hopkin, Bart. “Patenting for Musical Instruments.” Experimental Musical Instruments 6/6: 20.

Hornbostel, Erich M. von, and Curt Sachs. “Classification of Musical Instruments.” In Ethnomusicology: An Introduction, Edited by Helen Myers, 444-61. New York: Norton, 1992. Originally published as “Systematik der Musikinstrumente,” in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 46 (1914): 553-90.

Howell, Thomas. Certain Improvements in Musical Instruments. Patent 6964. December 21, 1835.

Hutchins, Carleen Maley. “New Violin Family (Violin Octet).” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/51569 (accessed March 1, 2013).

Hutchins, Carleen Maley, and Virginia Benade. Research Papers in Violin Acoustics, 1975-1993: With an Introductory Essay, 350 Years of Violin Research. Woodbury, NY: Published by the Acoustical Society of America through the American Institute of Physics, 1997.

Jackson, Myles W. Harmonious Triads: Physicists, Musicians, and Instrument Makers in 19th- Century Germany. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2006.

Jalovec, Karel. Encyclopedia of Violin-Makers, vols. 1 and 2. London: Paul Hamlyn, 1968.

———. German and Austrian Violin-Makers. London: Paul Hamlyn, 1967.

———. The Violin Makers of Bohemia, Including Craftsmen of Moravia and Slovakia. Chicago: William Lewis and Son, 1960.

Kass, Philip. “Modern Historical Research: The Violin as Art.” Journal of the Violin Society of America 13/2 (1993): 11-31.

Kinsky, Georg. Musikhistorisches Museum von Wilhelm Heyer in Coln, Katalog, Zweiter Band: Zupf- und Streichinstrumente. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1912.

Knowles, L. C. A. Economic Development in the Nineteenth Century: France, Germany, Russia, and the United States. London: George Routledge & Sons, 1947.

Koster, John. “Inventive Violin Making: Important Acquisitions Enrich Museum’s Holdings.” America’s Shrine to Music Museum Newsletter 28/3 (August 2001): 1-3.

Laird, Paul R. “The Life and Work of Carleen Maley Hutchins.” Catgut Acoustical Society.

Accessed February 28, 2013. Http://www.catgutacoustical.org/people/cmh/index.htm.

Libin, Laurence. “Early Violins: Problems and Issues.” Early Music 19 (Feb. 1991): 5-6.

———. “Progress, Adaptation, and the Evolution of Musical Instruments.” Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society 26 (2000): 187-213.

Lindert, Peter, and Leticia Arroyo Abad. “Global Price and Income History Group Database.” University of California-Davis. Accessed January 31, 2013, http://gpih.ucdavis.edu/Datafilelist.htm.

Linsenmeyer, Christina. “Competing with Cremona: Violin Making Innovation and Tradition in Paris (1802-1851).” PhD diss., University of Washington, 2011.

Meyer, Leonard B. Style and Music: Theory, History, and Ideology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989.

Millant, Roger. J. B. Vuillaume: sa vie et son oeuvre. London: W. E. Hill, 1972.

Montagu, Jeremy. Origins and Development of Musical Instruments. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2007.

Morley, John. The History of Furniture: Twenty-Five Centuries of Style and Design in the Western Tradition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1999.

Musée de la Musique. “Oeuvre de Musée: Octobasse.” Accessed February 14, 2013. http://mediatheque.cite- musique.fr/ClientBookLineCIMU/recherche/noticeDetailleByIdPopup.asp?ID=0161700.

National Music Museum. “NMM 14529.” Collection display information card.

Neece, Brenda. “The Cello in Britain: A Technical and Social History.” The Galpin Society Journal 56 (2003): 77-115.

Nelson, Sheila M. The Violin and Viola: History, Structure, Techniques. New York: Dover Publications, 2003.

Pierre, Rene. “Facteurs et marchands de musique de l’est de la france.” Accessed February 25, 2013. Http://facteursetmarchandsdemusique.blogspot.com/2013/02/nicolas-sulot-1780- 1858-inventeur-de.html.

Revkin, Andrew C. “String Theory: New Approaches to Instrument Design.” The New York Times, November 28, 2006. Accessed March 1, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/science/28acou.html.

Rice, Albert R. “Making and Improving the Nineteenth-Century Saxophone.” Journal of the

American Musical Instrument Society 35/81: 81-122.

David Rivinus. “Design Concepts: Shape Changes on String Instruments.” Accessed March 2, 2013. Http://www.rivinus-instruments.com/DesignConcepts.htm.

———. “Design Counsel.” The Strad 117/1389 (Jan. 2006): 48-52.

———. “Some Surprising Recent Discoveries Regarding the Origins of the Violin.” Journal of the Violin Society of America 20/1 (2005): 29.

———. “Vision – Innovation – Acoustics.” Accessed March 2, 2013. Http://www.rivinus- instruments.com/Welcome.htm.

Rossing, Thomas D. The Science of String Instruments. New York: Springer, 2010.

Sachs, Curt. The History of Musical Instruments. New York: W.W. Norton, 1940.

———. Sammlung Musikinstrumente bei der staatlichen Hochscule für Musik zu Berlin. Berlin: Julius Bard, 1922.

Schelleng, John. “The Violin as a Circuit.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35 (1963): 326-38.

Schlesinger, Kathleen. The Instruments of the Modern Orchestra & Early Records of the Precursors of the Violin Family. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.

Schoenbaum, David. “Endgame in the Violin Trade?” The New York Times, February 11, 2001. Accessed March 2, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/11/arts/music-nearing- endgame-in-the-violin-trade.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.

———. The Violin: A Social History of the World’s Most Versatile Instrument. New York: W. W. Norton, 2013.

Shaves, Nick. “An Instrument Maker and a Scientist Talk about their Passion for Physics.” The Strad (2007): 104.

Sheets, Arian. Correspondence with Kay Marcum ([email protected]). December 3, 2010.

———. “‘Guns, Sporting Goods… And My Celebrated Improved Patent Violins’: The Work of a Dakota Pioneer Preserved.” National Music Museum Newsletter 31/4: 4.

———. “If Salvador Dali Played the Viola… Art Meets Ergonomics in a Distinctive New Instrument.” National Music Museum Newsletter 32/4: 4-5.

Skeaping, Kenneth. “Some Speculations in the Crisis of the History of the Violin.” The Galpin Society Journal 8 (1955): 3-12.

Small, Christopher. “Performance as Ritual: Sketch for an Inquiry into the True Nature of a Symphony Concert.” In Lost in Music: Culture, Style, and the Musical Event, edited by Avron Levine White. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987: 6-32.

Stearns, Peter N. The Industrial Revolution in World History, Third Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2007.

Strobel, Henry A. Useful Measurements for Violin Makers: A Reference for Shop Use. Aumsville, Oregon: H. A. Strobel, 1989.

Teich, Mikuláš, and Roy Porter. The Industrial Revolution in National Context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Timmerman, Alex. “Guitars with Extra Bass Strings: Johann Georg Stauffer and His Son Johann Anton Stauffer and their Contemporaries.” In Ivan Padovec: 1800-1873 and His Age, ed. Vjera Katalinić and Sanja Majer-Bobetko. Croatia: Hrvatsko Muzikološko Društvo, 2006.

Tinel, Guy, and Emmanuel Jaeger. “Artist, Inventor, Entrepreneur: The Legacy of Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume.” The Strad 109/1300: 1998.

Wade, Nicholas. “In Classic vs. Modern Violins, Beauty is in the Ear of the Beholder.” The New York Times, January 2, 2012. Accessed March 1, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/science/in-play-off-between-old-and-new-violins- stradivarius-lags.html.

Wasielewski, Wilhelm Joseph von. The Violoncello and its History. Translated by Isobella S. E. Stigand. New York: Da Capo, 1968.

Wechsberg, Joseph. The Glory of the Violin. New York: Viking, 1973.

Wilson, Christopher. “Cut the Curves.” The Strad 113/1347 (2002): 750-55.

Whistler, Harvey S., and Ernest N. Doring. Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume of Paris. Chicago, IL: W. Lewis, 1961.

Wyatt, Lucius R. “The Brussels Museum of Musical Instruments.” Music Educators Journal 53/6 (1967): 48-51.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sarah M. Gilbert

In the spring of 2011, Sarah completed the B.A. in both music and psychology at Austin College in Sherman, Texas. She enrolled at The Florida State University in the fall of 2011 to begin her

M.M. in historical musicology.