Of Cremona Violins, the ear, and peer review

In his review of my book Cremona Violins: A Physicist’s Quest for the Secrets of Stradivari, Gabriel Weinreich dismisses Jack Fry’s violin research, saying Fry never published anything on the subject in a refereed scientific journal. I am surprised, since in my extended conversations with Weinreich on 7 December 1996 he said, “Violin physics [we both understood that to mean physics published in refereed scientific journals] is directed by its very nature toward an understanding of how a violin works, by definition. And it is addressed to an audience of people who are excited by the prospect of finding out how a violin works. Violin physics perhaps can be, but certainly need not be, directed to the question of what makes violins good.”

Fry is interested in what makes violins good. Although based on sound physics principles, Fry’s decades of semi-empirical research on what he calls “old junk violins” from the 19th century is motivated toward unraveling what Weinreich calls in a 1993 article ¹ “a tantalizing new secret of Stradivarius.” Over the years, Fry has designed numerous experiments and tested the changes in the acoustical properties brought about by varnish, asymmetric thickness variations inside the bottom and top plates, changes in shape and size of the bass bars, and graduations in localized critical areas. During the past two years, he has focused his attention on duplicating the subtle tonal qualities generally attributed to old Cremona instruments.

Perhaps Fry’s most important innovation is based on the observation that the thickness graduations made in the plates and the associated normal modes change significantly in the completed varnished instrument. Using simple scraping devices, Fry can change the timbre to achieve a desired tonal quality. He calls it fine-tuning. He has provided guidelines for making good violins, and many of his modified and transformed violins are now in the hands of young and upcoming violin players. Fry’s kind of research, a convergence of art and science, is neither amenable to nor acceptable in the conventional “refereed scientific journals.” It has to be judged by violin makers and violin players.

Regarding the DVD included with the book, Weinreich is right: It is not an objective demonstration of the proof of Fry’s ideas. It was intended to illustrate some possibilities for violin makers who, perhaps with better understanding, can make consistently better-sounding instruments. Rosemary Harbison was not sought out for the demonstration. She, along with other violinists, has been working with Fry for the past several years. Fry is leaving more than 600 pages of his notes and his experimental records to the rare books and manuscripts section of the University of Wisconsin–Madison Libraries, with free access to anyone interested. Also, a video book on the simple physics of violins is in preparation.

Neither Fry nor I claim to have a precise mechanical method for turning out great violins, each sounding exactly alike. However, a violin maker who understands the science of his instrument can make consistently better ones, perhaps eventually even better than those of the Cremona masters. Fry’s effort, like any scientific and artistic inquiry, is a quest for truth, enlightenment, and beauty.