The bridge, positioned right in the middle of the instrument, is the center of acoustical gravity. It produces the sound, so it is normal that violin makers pay a lot of attention both to the conception and practical realization of the bridge. The cutting of the bridge, repeated over and over again, opens the way to a process of experimentation and, over the years, violin makers have developed some personal recipes. A bridge carries the maker's individual touch, and the sense of his or her craft, in an attempt to bring the instrument to the best of its possibilities. But such
attention to the bridge can lead to neglect of some other
important parts, such as the fittings.
Who would imagine that the violin fittings, including the fingerboard, represent a quarter of its weight? I myself wonder why those accessories, honest components of a beautiful object Ä this fine tool called ``a violin'' Ä have evolved so much. The chin rest is five times larger than a hundred years ago, the cello end pin has increased three times in length over the same period, but the instruments themselves have evolved little. Why? The fittings, which act as an interface or connection point with the musician, were the first to answer the technical modifications required by musical and cultural changes. |
Have these modifications of the accessories respected the instrument? Do they enhance all of the its capacities as an acoustical tool? Acoustically and mechanically speaking, it is obvious that a good tailpiece will not perform miracles on a Strad or a cheap fiddle but in some cases it can help. This subject has interested few violin makers, maybe because the tailpiece, being machine made, is a contribution which is external to the workshop. It is often put on ``as is'' and the violin maker has to ``make up for it'' by working on other parameters to influence the sound. In the last hundred years, the evolution of the tailpiece does not seem linked to the acoustical, mechanical, or aesthetic needs of the instrument. Here are some examples: |
French violin tailpece, XIXth century Wide and light (11.2 grams) French violin tailpiece, XXth century smaller, thicker, heavier (13.8 grams) |
|
|
| ||
For a Century, the German industry of instrument
accessories has furnished and is still furnishing the
whole world, due to the fact that the manufacturers
standardized the fittings: strong and not expensive.
The French and English makers, known since the 19th Century, disappeared in the '50s. I am thinking about Mr. Ruer in Mirecourt, or the Hills in London. |
German tailpiece, Markneunkirchen 1928 German tailpieces-Mittenwald 1980 |
|
Let's take a look at the tail-piece models available
on the market today: Pusch: With its numerous metallic parts, it is not so efficient in the sound setup. The only advantage is that it is made of wood. Akusticus: Made of plastic, it works well and is not expensive. I am not fond of its aesthetics, and surprisingly, it weighs the same as a traditional ebony tail-piece. Finally, Wittner,This model is commonly used, as it is more aesthetically pleasing and works well. The aluminum alloy used for its fabrication makes it 50% heavier than ebony. The question of weight has been at the center of my studies.
|
The importance of the bridge's oscillation from
one foot to the other seems basic to me, so I tried an experiment. While a friend was playing his cello, I fixed a 40 grams clamp on various points of the tailpiece. The balance of the four strings was immediately modified. The most critical point was at the string end. With extra weight there, the sound was irregular and weak, and the response was slow. The excessive weight of the fine tuners acts as a mute. This brought me to the design of a new tail piece, the ``Harmonie'' series, :featuring light composite fine tuners incorporated into an equally light wooden tailpiece of ebony or boxwood. The rigidity, or acoustic conduction, of the
tailpiece material seems less important.
However, tests comparing a tailpiece made out of
heavy ebony or ``grenadille,'' and a light tailpiece
in Pernambucco seem significant.
Nevertheless, :
Pernambucco was used to make tailpieces in Mirecourt during the Second World War, when ebony was rare. At the time, nobody noticed anything particular regarding the sound. |
Lastly I considered the tail gut and its
elasticity. Unfortunately, the traditional gut string
is seldom used anymore. The use of threaded
nylon has quickly become popular to facilitate the
adjustment of the string afterlength between the
bridge and tailpiece, without taking the time to
compare the respective qualities of nylon and gut.
It seems to me that a soft material like nylon is more apt to absorb the vibrations of the tailpiece.
|
In my opinion, the sound quality seems undoubtedly dependent on whether or not the tailpiece can rotate . The way the two ends of the tail gut are tied balances the four strings acoustically . |
|
|
The use of a steel adjuster seems to
please violin makers acoustically, if not
aesthetically. I don't know the reason,
but steel is more rigid than nylon, and
two strands of the adjuster in this kind
of attachment are often closer
together.
So trying to make the tailpiece vibrate more easily at the tail gut seems interesting. Some experiments could be done: |
Baroque tail gut "en cavalier": meilleure liberté de rotation du cordier. Corde d’attache moderne |
|
Many other experiments need to be done regarding tail pieces.
|
How can we validate the ``progress'' or the ``results''
of our experiments? It is a problem for me. Now I
would like to tell you the pernambucco story.
Three years ago, an experiment on fittings was started by a French luthier in Tokyo; specifically, on tailpieces, made in pernambucco. I was the maker of those tailpieces. In the beginning, I was doubtful about the qualities of this wood, and I thought that the commercial and/or charismatic capacities of this luthier were conditioning the trend. According to the musicians, the results were miraculous. . But where did these results come from? From their imagination, or actually from the pernambucco? I tried an experiment with two groups of violin makers: I asked the ones in the first group (people open to new experiments) to try this new extraordinary tailpiece. A second group, selected from violin makers who were more doubtful, was also asked to try this tailpiece. The results from both groups were perfectly identical: six out of ten found some improvement: fast and better sound emission, opening up of the instrument and, sometimes, reduction of certain unwanted noises. The conclusion is that in this situation, the product spoke for itself without too much Ä or in spite of Ä human interferences; the experiment can be considered valid. I have doubts about the validity of experimental methods, as I know that an instrument will never be set- up or played twice in the same way. The results, even if they are real, will not be applicable to your neighbor's instrument. ..As I indicated, the evolution of the tail piece in the
last century caused it to become a ``foreign'' part of the
instrument.
Both the violin maker and the musician often
neglect the fittings and consider them only for their
mechanical function they seem almost invisible as long
as they function.
|