George Gemünder's Progress in Violin Making

After a time, however, when Poznanski felt more at home at Gemünder's, he found out that the instruments made by Gemünder were the only true concert violins, and disposing of his Guarnerius, he bought a Maggini made by Gemünder; he now saw the full extent of his prejudice, and was most severe in his denunciation of all who thought that there were no other violins but the Italian to be played upon.

If Wieniawski had not been seized with such a strange fancy, and had had more confidence in other artists, he would not have been compelled to change violins every now and then, for he was constantly buying one Italian violin after another and finding none to suit him, merely because none would do but an Italian instrument. Thus he came to America and played on his Stradivarius violin, which had a splendid tone in a room, but when played upon in a concert hall proved a great deal too weak, especially on the G string, when it was overstrained. He then bought one of the finest Guarnerius violins in Brooklyn, but as it did not prove any better than the other, he returned it.

To find Italian violins fit to produce a sufficient effect in large concert halls is a great rarity, since they have been mostly spoiled by "fiddle-patchers," or had not from the very beginning the proper construction for the giving out of tone sufficient to fill such halls. On just such powerless violins Vieuxtemps performed at his concerts on his last tour through America.

One day Gemünder made the acquaintance of Mario, the greatest Italian connoisseur of violins, who was decorated for this knowledge when he was at New York. Gemünder asked him to come to his shop, as he had several violins which he would like to show him, in order to have him judge if they were really genuine instruments. Mario came and viewed the violins shown to him by Gemünder minutely, nay, even took a magnifying glass to examine the varnish, whereupon he declared to Gemünder that they were genuine instruments. But the fact is they were violins made by Gemünder!

In the beginning of 1860 Gemünder was often visited by an amateur named Messing, who wished to find a good Italian violin, for he manifested an aversion toward Gemünder's productions, owing to his prejudice against new violins. At the same time Gemünder had as an apprentice a nephew, who, when he had not yet been fully three years with him, was engaged to make his first violin, according to form of Stradivarius. When it was finished Gemünder made him a present of it, and said he would varnish it so as to look old. Afterward his apprentice gave it to a friend in New York to sell it for him. This friend published in the newspapers that he had a Stradivarius to sell. Mr. Messing was the first to make inquiries about it, and bought it, highly rejoiced at having a Stradivarius at last. He then had it examined by the violin maker Mercier, in New York, who confirmed the claim of originality. Mr. Messing then went to Europe, and at Paris he wished to hear what the violin maker Gand would say, and the latter also declared it was an old instrument, adding, however, that in order to be quite sure whether it was a genuine instrument or not it would require more time than he could apply to it just then. When he went to Berlin, he showed his instrument to the violin maker Grimm, that he might hear from him his opinion as to its genuineness. Grimm refrained from uttering his opinion, yet he offered him a high price for the instrument, which the owner considered to be sufficient evidence that he possessed something extraordinary, and to warrant him in keeping his violin. After the lapse of four years, when Messing had returned to New York, he came to see Gemünder, full of joyous anxiety to show him his violin, saying, "Here, Mr. Gemünder, I have something to show you; I have found what I have been so long looking for!" Mr. Messing then opened his box, and Gemünder, catching a glimpse of the violin, exclaimed, "That is my apprentice's first production; how did you come by it?" At these words Mr. Messing stood as if thunderstruck, and in his bewilderment he tried in every way to convince Gemünder that he was mistaken, but failing in this attempt, his discomfiture was complete. When he had somewhat recovered from his dismay, he felt heartily ashamed, because he had disregarded the work of the master only to take up with the apprentice's first production, and this, too, under the delusion that that work was a genuine Stradivarius violin. Mr. Messing is now cured of his prejudice, and is no longer looking for a Stradivarius violin.

At the time when Gemünder had his violin in the Exhibition of Vienna, Baron Leonard, from Hungary, who was a great violinist, brought him his Italian violin to have it repaired. During their discourse about violins the Baron conveyed to Gemünder the impression that he had already seen many Italian violins, and he seemed to have a great knowledge of them. Thereupon Gemünder showed him a violin that seemed to be a genuine Guarnerius, which he had determined to send to the exhibition of Vienna. The Baron was quite astonished at seeing such a wonderful and splendid instrument, and did not know which to admire more, whether the varnish of the violin or its tone; in short, he looked at it with reverence, as if it were a shrine. Gemünder then showed him a Stradivarius, and when the Baron's gaze fell upon this instrument, he seemed to be enraptured, and he exclaimed, in a tone of question: "Mr. Gemünder, how do you come by such treasures? In truth you have a treasure of the greatest rarity, for I never saw a violin so beautiful and of such tone!" When, however, Gemünder declared to him that these were the sisters of the "Kaiser" violin, which was in the Vienna Exhibition, and were made by him, the Baron conducted himself as if he had awakened from a sweet dream, and found it difficult to realize his true condition.

PREFACE

It is not my intention to unfold in this work my knowledge of the structure of violins; for the present generation would not thank me for doing so. In the treatise itself will be found the reasons why I have not set forth that knowledge. Since the death of the celebrated old Italian violin makers, many works have been put forth, in which we find not only in what manner those famous masters varnished their violins, but also prescriptions even, of theorists who usually know nothing about the practice, or mathematical principles thereof. Abundant theories are to be found in all such works, but they are good only for those who have little or no knowledge of violin making. If the science of the celebrated Italian masters could really have been found in these works, the experiments made by European investigators would not have been entirely unsuccessful.

In George Hart's interesting book, "The Violin," a comparative illustration may be found of the workmanship of all violin makers with whom he became acquainted, either personally or by history, and by whose productions he obtained his practical knowledge, which comparisons are generally good, but not entirely free from error. This compilation of experiences is highly interesting for all those who take an interest in violins. The treatises which will be found below have reference simply to the art of making violins, to violin players and their critics, the information contained in which has for the most part never hitherto been made public.

Through these scientific explanations a better judgment will be awakened, which will tend to show how, in consequence of mistakes and ignorance in regard to violins and violin makers, false ideas arise.

PROGRESS OF THE STRUCTURE OF VIOLINS – THEIR CRITICS

In 1845 I became personally acquainted with Ole Bull, at Vuillaume's, in Paris, where I then had my first opportunity of hearing and admiring an artist on the violin. I learned then to appreciate the beauty of both arts, and the sublimity of attainment in either to be a violin virtuoso or a perfect violin maker. The latter art engaged my whole attention, and it was my greatest aim to reach to the highest point of perfection therein.

I also found that Ole Bull took special interest in the different forms of violins, and I remember that as early as 1841, at which time I worked at Pesth, my employer made the so-called "Ole Bull's bass-bars" in violins, the ideas of Ole Bull concerning violins then being accepted as authority. Ole Bull subsequently made many experiments regarding tone, especially upon new violins, in order to reproduce the same character of tone, then considered lost, peculiar to the Italian instruments. Knowing that all experiments made since the death of the celebrated Italian masters had proven unsuccessful, he undertook to construct a violin of very old wood, but was soon convinced that he had not obtained better results than others; he therefore decided the project to be an impossibility, and having arrived at this decision, his opinion was generally conceded to. Since then, doubtless, he found out that to make a violin was a more difficult task, for him, than to play on one. As a virtuoso, however, he obtained a celebrity which will make his name immortal, and as he was an artist in his own peculiar way, his name will live forever in the memory of men. Nature has endowed many men with rare gifts, each one possessing a talent peculiar to himself: but we know how long it requires to perfect one's self in any given art, and it therefore cannot be expected that a great violin virtuoso should at the same time be proficient in the art of violin making, the two arts being totally different. It is, however, generally believed that the assertion of Ole Bull had more weight with many violin players and amateurs than the most adequate knowledge of a violin maker. I admit that Ole Bull had some experience with violins, but had he obtained sufficient knowledge he would have easily understood that many of his ideas were not based upon principles which he thought had remained secret to all investigators on the subject, as the greatest authorities have acknowledged the tone in George Gemünder's violins to be of the same quality as that characteristic of the best Italian instruments.

This proves that violins are judged the best when they are mistaken for Italian instruments and prejudice only is the actuating motive when the declaration follows that the instrument is a new violin. If, therefore, the knowledge of tone could have proved more reliable, prejudice would not, in many cases, have appeared so severe, and embodied itself so as to degenerate into fanaticism.

Violins made of healthy wood and according to the rule can never lose their tone. It is, however, something different if they are carelessly treated.

When an Italian violin, which lay untouched in concealment for fifty years, was shown to Wieniawski at the Russian court, and he was asked what he thought of it, he said, after trying it: "The violin has a bad tone." "Well," said the Emperor, "let us put it back in its old place. If it had been good I should have presented you with it." Wieniawski, greatly surprised, replied: "Oh, when I play upon it it will regain its tone." Here vanity and ignorance are shown at once; for if that artist had had any knowledge of violins, he must have known that the violin was not in good order, and that it was first necessary to have it put in a good condition by a professional repairer; but instead of making such a proposal, he thought to make an impression by his renown, and that he would improve it by playing upon it.

I mention this because it contains two points: firstly, because, especially here in America, great stress is laid upon the opinions of such artists, but it proves that artists do not always have a knowledge sufficient to enable them to give a correct judgment of violins; secondly, if this violin had been new, many would have thought that it was made of chemically prepared wood. A violin, however, of such defective wood, can never give a good tone; because the life is taken out of it when it is made. If such artists would make themselves acquainted with a professional violin maker, many of them would get more light on this matter, but since they consider themselves to be authorities on the subject, there is very little prospect of visible progress. It is, therefore, a rarity when an artist is found who is able to judge of the quality of tone, whether the wood is chemically prepared or not, and although this is easily to be distinguished by the practiced ear, a peculiar experience is required for it nevertheless. Many, however, believe that he who plays the violin to perfection, and especially the player of renown, must be acknowledged as a judge of tone. I admit that many violin players are judges of tone, but not beyond a certain degree, as the greater number of them hear their own instruments only and are taken with them; but he who possesses a feeling of tone, and into whose hands violins of all shapes and qualities are falling, whereby he learns to distinguish the different characters of tone, is to be considered a connoisseur of tone; he must, however, possess some knowledge of playing, although it is not necessary for him to be a solo player, for with how many solo players have I become acquainted who have no more judgment of tone than children.

For musicians and solo players it is very difficult to find out how far the tone of a violin reaches. Many a player, having no experience in this regard, plays in concerts on a violin which sounds like an echo, but if the instrument is called Stradivarius or Guarnerius and $3,000 has been paid for it, and besides it has a "history" attached to it, then, verily, it must sound. The critic, however, does not blame the violin, but the player, for weakness of tone, and in that respect he is right.

For solo players who still use such echoing violins in concerts, it would be of the greatest importance to make themselves acquainted with the quality of tone which is fit for concerts, for most Italian violins which are used in concerts prove either too old or of too thin wood; but most players are accustomed to the fine, tender, echoing tone to a degree that the true concert tone appears quite strange to them.

Thus, violins of chemically prepared wood will never do for concerts, and it is a great mistake to believe that such violins have ever produced as good a tone as good Italian violins do. Ignorance and self interest have launched this untruth into the world. For violins made of such wood produce short vibrations – a muffled color of tone similar to that of impaired Italian instruments. Vuillaume put all the world in commotion with his violins of chemically prepared wood, and all the world sang hosannas. But when it was found that such instruments kept this tone only a short time, there arose a general prejudice against new violins and no one would play on them.

In order to remove all such ideas and prejudices I can safely assert that violins of a free, high, clear and powerful character of tone, with a quality which thrills the heart – such tone as my instruments produce, and which qualities are now seldom found in the best Italian violins – can never be obtained by any artificial preparation of the wood, but only by way of science according to acoustic principles.

Of course it is the wood more than anything else which is to be taken into consideration; for without the right sort of wood all science will be unavailing, and vice versa. Many violin makers can get the best wood, but where there is no talent applied in the construction, nothing very good can come forth.

Of all productions of art, the violin is the most difficult to judge, and I have nearer illustrated the different characters of tone which violins produce, and tried to make these things more comprehensible, in order that this medley of opinions and judgments which have been given may be put in a clearer light.

I was highly astonished at the manner in which my "Emperor" violin ("Kaiser" violin) was judged, which was sent to the Exhibition of Vienna three weeks after it had been finished. The violin had attracted not only many admirers, but also a great number of gazers who have no idea of a violin, and who stared at it only on account of its price.

Thus, the New York Staats Zeitung had a correspondent in Vienna, who also stared at the violin from the same reason. His ignorance, which he exposed in his correspondence to the newspaper which he represented, led him to make the following remark, which was published on the 27th of June, 1873, and runs as follows: "From Salzburg several violins, mostly the former property of Mozart and Beethoven, were sent, and the one which Beethoven owned was made by Hellmer, at Prague, in 1737, as was noted on the label, (saleable for 200 Florins,) while for a Gemünder violin in the American division of the Industrial Palace, $10,000 (!) are asked. Of course, everybody laughs at the simpleton who believes this is the only curiosity of the kind, and thinks he can obtain such a fabulous price for it. The Commission that for this time has made us very ridiculous with our 'Go ahead,' should remove that label as soon as possible, that one of the exhibitors may not become a public laughing stock." But that writer soon found how much this violin was admired; he learned to see that it was the only curiosity of the kind, in fact, for soon afterward I read again in the Sontag's Staats Zeitung that "the violin was admired very much."

This violin was exhibited by me for the purpose of proving to the world that I can make violins that have the tone which has been sought for a long time since the death of the celebrated Italian masters, since which all attempts have miscarried, and I confirmed this fact in a circular added to it.

But what was the result? It was not believed. In the Exhibition of Vienna my violin was mistaken for a genuine Cremonese violin, not only for its tone, but for its outer appearance, which was so striking an imitation according to Joseph Guarnerius, that a newspaper of Vienna made the observation: "George Gemünder cannot make us Germans believe that the violin sent by him is new; a bold Yankee only can put his name in a genuine instrument, in order to make himself renowned!"

Although this was the highest prize which a violin maker had ever obtained, it was no advantage either for me or the public; for the art of violin making was not furthered by it, but rather still more impaired by the correspondence of the Staats Zeitung and the New York Bellestristic Journal. The latter writes as follows: "S. F., Pittsburg. – G. is a pupil of Vuilliaume; his violins are much demanded, but their prices are so high that purchasers are frightened!"

Thirty years ago I sold violins at from $50 to $75; ten years ago I sold violins at from $100 to $300; now I sell them at $100 and upwards; and violin makers here and in Europe ask the same prices. Nay, amateurs who do best in their ignorance, ask still higher prices. Wherein, therefore, do we find that which frightens the purchasers? The effrontery of writers who make such statements as the above will bring them no honor.

Many may still remember that I had determined to send six violins of different forms, copies of the best old master-violins, to the Vienna Exhibition, and intended myself to take the matter in hand, but, owing to an accident, I was compelled to give up this intention. In consequence, I resolved to send only one violin. To select one of them, artists such as Wollenhaupt, Dr. Damrosch, Carl Feinninger and others were consulted, but they differed in their opinions, which may be taken as a proof that the instruments were very much alike in character; they are also witnesses of the fact that I made them. In order to call attention to the one selected, I noted the price "ten thousand dollars!" Nobody, however, was charged to dispose of it, although three thousand dollars were offered.

The circumstances connected with the construction of this violin gives it more than an ordinary interest. Ridicule and praise in the highest degree are interwoven with its history; therefore, it has been hitherto the most interesting new violin in this century. Why I could not be its representative and had to leave it to fate can be learned from what I have already written about it, and how I have judged every thing connected with it. I was, however, sure of one fact, namely, that it would be acknowledged as a production of art. The admission must then be made, and the claim is amply justified by facts, that, as new violins are frequently mistaken for genuine Italian instruments, even when most particular attention is given to the varnish, the art of violin making must no longer be considered as a lost one.

May the foregoing satisfy all doubters and those who have lately, especially in America, written about the lost art of varnish and tone, and may it cause them in future to refrain from investigating into the so called lost arts. He who would give a scientific explanation of this art and be a critic, must be thoroughly acquainted with it.

A TREATISE UPON THE MANNER IN WHICH MASTER-VIOLINS ARE RUINED

The manner in which violins are so often ruined seems almost beyond comprehension, or rather the way they are generally treated must necessarily involve their ruin. The cause of this can not be entirely ascribed to those destroyers of violins who pretend to be repairers, but it generally rests with the owners of violins themselves, because they are usually ignorant as to who is master of the art of violin making and to whom a master violin may be entrusted. They therefore make inquiries for such experts, and apply for that purpose, generally, to renowned violin players, not realizing that even these are not always endowed with discrimination, frequently not more so than the one asking advice, and thus the latter is led astray.

To find an adept repairer is as difficult as to find a thorough master of the art of making violins; for the repairer must possess the same knowledge of the production of tone as the best violin maker. The man who cannot make excellent violins cannot be an excellent repairer. To obviate all doubts on the subject, I will state that the foundation of the whole secret is simply this "Every violin maker will make repairs in accordance with his knowledge, as he would make violins, and violins as he would make repairs!" This principle is so scientifically correct as to be conceded even by the most severe critics.

Many a man achieves a reputation by certain meritorious accomplishments in which he has distinguished himself, and in consequence thereof everyone believes him an artist in the fullest meaning of the word. For instance, Ludwig Bausch, of Leipsig, gained a deserved and world wide celebrity as an artist in making bows. I also esteemed him as an excellent and very accurate worker. But to my astonishment I found, as I regret to say, that his fine repairs were mostly devoid of value, as also were his new violins, so far as the production of tone was concerned. But artists and amateurs, far and near, adored his useless repairs and new violins, which latter usually sold for high prices.

Thus the public are unable to form a proper judgment in regard to the art. It would pain many a one, if they could realize the manner in which valuable violins are treated by such violin makers and repairers. Repairing violins, therefore, is as little understood as violins themselves, in consequence of which not only the interior of many an Italian instrument is ruined, but also the exterior is often deprived of its classical appearance by an alcoholic varnish, which is smeared over it and which impairs its value; and yet many owners of such instruments, who do not know any better, rejoice to see their violins with such a glossy surface.

To rehabilitate a valuable instrument, and repair the exterior if necessary, requires a skill as artistic as the rehabilitation of a painting by a celebrated painter. Such instruments are also often peculiarly tortured by unskilled hands, and many a valuable top has been damaged by the operation of putting, or rather forcing, in the sounding post.

Owners of violins should take particular precaution never to permit the cutting away of wood out of the bottom or top of a violin, without being fully satisfied that the repairer is an adept in the art. In Italian violins made by the old celebrated masters there is no necessity at all for doing this, as they have not as a rule any too much wood, and most of them are poor enough in this respect; in case those artists made no mistakes others have brought them in by their repairs.