ITALIAN BOW MAKING; A DISIPLIN WITHOUT ANY SCHOOLAs I have mentioned some weeks ago, M° Jean Francois Raffin held a conference in Cremona, dedicated to the French bows. Besides being a very interesting event in itself, especially for those who do my kind of work, he made it very clear to me what the problems are for Italian bow making.
Bow with a “lance” shaped head made in snake wood and ivory This event has given me useful information and at least one certainty. The information involves the bow in the photo above. During the conference, the Master discussed the beginning of the bow making discipline in France, analysing the work of the most important craftsmen - above all, the Tourte family. One of the bows taken as an example was a Nicolas Pierre Tourte with a “lance” shaped head, similar to the one in the photo; which of course isn't the same bow - some photos are kept well away in archives. Anyhow, the bow M° Jean Francois Raffin discussed, was made by Pierre Tourte, dated 1745, and made in Pernambuco wood. This shows us that some testing of the newfound material, had already taken place in France too, other than in Italy and Germany, in the first half of 18th century. The Master added that the newfound wood arrived in Paris in the end of 16th century. Even though the Pernambuco wood had been known for a long time, it only became the principal material for bow making by the end of the 17th century; cc. 1770. This is what I propose, and to support this statement I offer you the confirmation that the Master gave me. The confirmation of which I speak, originates from the antique curve commonly named the “Peccatte curve”. In order to talk about the period from Nicolas Pierre up until his sons, M°Raffin had to bring in the argument about the famous bow brought to Paris in 1769, by the violinist Wilhelm Cramer; note, later called the “Cramer model”. I did read it in his book, but until I hadn't heard it directly from him, I thought modesty would prevent him to declare in public that the bow which arrived in Paris in 1769 was without curve; but in fact he did just that. At that very moment, you heard a cough from the translator, a colleague of ours, and I turned to look at Daniel for confirmation of what I had just heard. Our reaction was due to the fact that not only do we know that a bow with a head and a frog so high and without curve would not function - basic knowledge in bow making. Thus, this statement is not true. It is not that a bow of such structure function less or in a bad way, it doesn't function at all. When playing long notes, a bow without curve, would tend to fall to one side and would not obtain any contact with the instrument, and when leaping the bow would move sideways five centimetres with each bounce. For further information: CRAMER VERSUS CRAMER; OR RIGHTLY THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS (PART I) CRAMER VERSUS CRAMER; OR RIGHTLY THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS (PART II) The confirmation appeared a few minutes later when the Master explained, in a very precise was I must say, the three different models of curves used in the period from the Tourte until today; thus offering prove of a profound knowledge of the mechanism of the function of the bow. M° Raffin divided the evolution of the bow in three periods: Tourte, Voirin and Sartory. I consider the Sartory curve to be at the end of the evolution of the Voirin, and the Ouchard fils, the Bazin and the Morizot to be the degeneration of the Sartory. Formally different analysis, but basically the same. Besides illustrating the various curves, M° Raffin also emphasized the superiority of the antique curves to the modern ones, claiming that “it would be unlikely for a soloist of high level to choose a Sartory for a concert, because this mechanism doesn't give enough stability and dynamic control”. This is when the translator had the second attack of cough, as if he didn't agree. The small “controversy” between the two surprised me quite a lot, and made me understand how important it is to have a good school. Whereas I agreed with the first cough, I agreed much less with the second one. Daniel had explained to me the necessity of our colleague to sell his products. My interpretation is different and supported by another fact of which I have given importance later one. All French bow makers have a profound respect for this man, and the reason why is very clear. Thanks to Bernard, who dedicated his life to study and teaching instead of profit, France has been able to arise from choices made in the late 18th and the early 19th century, and in this way regaining important teachings of the school, parts which had made it so great at the time. If there had been any France bow makers present at the conference, there would not have been any controversy as the superiority of this particular mechanism is completely established. The difference of the price between a Sartory and a Dominique Peccatte stands in the superiority of the project of the mechanism. For the first time I understood how much our school is set back compared to theirs. We were around fifty people in the auditorium, all violin or bow makers, though bow makers were in minority. I believe that only four of us understood the small controversy. The rest of the audience didn't notes absolutely anything, and the reason is that Bernard never reached us, or nearly. Those of you who have read my posts, would have been able to understand much better than the present on the day what M° Raffin was saying, and you must agree with me that it is absurd. To agree or disagree with anything you should at least have some knowledge of the background, and in that auditorium nobody knew what he was talking about. This is the condition of the Italian bow school. To read more about this topic: BERNARD OUCHARD; THE HUMBLE EDUCATOR So long, Paolo
|
   |
