Arto, I read the article but noticed that the dendrochronologist didn't specifically mention dating a representative sample of Stradivari (or other Cremonese) soundboards he's using as evidence --- other than the "Messiah". One section from the article also kind of struck me as kind of misleading: "We would suggest that the narrow tree rings that identify the Maunder Minimum in Europe played a role in the enhanced sound quality of instruments produced by the Cremona [Italy] violinmakers," Grissino-Mayer and Burckle write, noting that "narrow tree rings would not only strengthen the violin but would increase the wood's density."
Since both the connection of cold weather (cold winter/cool summers) and narrow tree rings, and the mini "ice age" of the Maunder Minimum has also been known for some time, the author seems to forget a few of very important points: 1. Luthiers (often) hoard tonewood, and in the past have been known to buy and possess stock that has been seasoning as part of a previous maker's inventory. 2. Luthiers choose the stock they build instruments from, not (usually) the other way around -- it's part of their job to select the best material available for the job, and reject what isn't acceptable. 3. Density is not the only important point to consider for an instrument top -- other factors such as strength, flexibility (springiness), internal stress, runout, etc must also be weighed in as part of the equation. I guess I'll have to get a copy of the article and read it for myself, because CNN has probably butchered his thesis to the point that it sounds overly-simplistic and misleading. I hope at least that he dated the lines on a representative sample of Strad, Amati, Maggini and Da Salo instruments, (maybe even a Tieffenbrucker lute or two) and possibly even on more instruments than just fiddles before trying to prove his point. It probably wouldn't hurt to also look into who Stradivarius (et al) bought their wood from, the state of deforestation in Northern Italy, the political climate at the time and it's effects on the Spruce/Pine/Larch trade, and maybe, just maybe get a luthier and an organologist who specializes in Violin-family instrument construction involved in the dialectic (assuming the full paper hasn't taken the above into account).... It's an interesting story, but the brevity of the CNN article kind of makes him sound a bit like all of the Strad-varnish-cult explanations that have been put forth over the years. I guess the biggest problem I have with the article is that it doesn't take into account that the violin had by that time undergone some 125 years of development and much was passed down in a fairly unbroken tradition from master to apprentice in that time. The article also implies that the wood drove the success of the violin without regard to changing musical tastes/styles and the importance of the evolving state of the art in luthiery. It's also important to note that some of the old Brescian and Cremonese fiddles now have up to 400 years of thermal cycling and playing (and repairs), that can often make their tops respond much differently than when they were first built. Since the woods were not just used to build fiddles, and since different types of stringed instruments require slightly different properties in their soundboards, perhaps it would also serve to explore what effects that the more dense wood had on the early guitar, late lutes and viols as well -- but then we would also have the problem that musical fashion may have had just as much influence on the popularity of the instruments as the "Maunder minimum" wood. Lastly, we have the problem of the Strad's extant instruments all being perceived to be masterworks. Instruments usually either survive time because of their cultural association, intrinsic worth, beauty, or functionality. Important or beautiful instruments often get packed away and not touched -- good playing instruments often get rehabilitated or modernized. The stinkers most often get burned, broken up, or allowed to fall into dust. That's the Strad I'd like to see included in the discussion -- one or more that just didn't make it to the finishing room. Sorry about my rambling -- it's just that there's more to any instrument than the combined sum of it's parts and maker. Studying them out of context with the social element they participate in (or not) isn't good science. I'd also really like to hear what any lute/violin makers on the list have to say about the article. Ron Banks Arto Wikla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Patrick, you wrote: > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/08/stradivarius.secret.ap/index.html > > This is an interesting story about the wood that was used by > Stradivari; the "Little Ice Age" that gripped Europe from the mid-1400s > until the mid-1800s that slowed tree growth and yielded uncommonly dense > Alpine spruce. > What does this mean for us? Were soundboards like this used for lutes, > and is it possible for us to replicate this kind of wood. This is a very interesting idea! But if is is true, you still can find this dense spruce today from here very north, from my Finland. ;-) And of course also from Canada and Russia! We have lots and lots of dense spruce in our wast forests, just take a look to the map! By the way, my tiny chitarrino, renaissance guitar, see http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/wikla/mus/LutePics/Chitarrino.gif has its soundboard made of 1500 century wood! The maker, Finnish lutenist Eero Palviainen, managed to buy a small part of the wall of a 1500 century house in Central Europe, and he used that material for my instrument! Perhaps that explains the very good and strong sound of my chitarrino? Arto --
