A Rambow cue with a bit of history
Zen Cueist
Inscribed with the owner's name (Charles W. Furst) and autographed by Willie
Hoppe, whom Furst played in an exhibition. Ivory butt ring.
Im-pressive!
--
David Hakala
The Zen Cueist
Denver, CO USA
"Pool excellence is NOT about excellent pool, it's about becoming someone."
Mail Man
>
> Inscribed with the owner's name (Charles W. Furst) and autographed by
Willie
> Hoppe, whom Furst played in an exhibition. Ivory butt ring.
>
> Im-pressive!
>
Impressive, indeed! A little surprise, too -- up until now, I have never
seen that short, pointed, piloted joint pin used by anybody but Helmstedter
in his 60's Adam cues. Other than a deeply knowledgeable pattern
familiarity, it is usually this pin that is used to more easily distinguish
an Adam from, say, a Palmer, Balabushka, Szamboti or Paradise of the
approximate same period. This is just part of my learning experience and I
am DEFINITELY NO EXPERT in this arena.
Yep, very nice cue!
Mike Collier
Oak Harbor, WA
fast...@gmail.com
iT'S COSTS $51 TO SEND pARCEL POST? iT'S PROBABLY a Hoppe Titelist
he simply did a little work on and used it as the stock cue. FL.
Dan White
news:u5idneZBM4xUslHY...@comcast.com...
I didn't know Rambow was considered the Stradivarius of cuemakers. That's
the first I've heard that said (in the website). In fact, didn't someone
say they don't play particularly well, or am I making that up?
dwhite
fast...@gmail.com
> "Mail Man" <not.h...@too-long-gone.com> wrote in message
Wrong, Balabushka was the premier cue. Most of the players of that
era used the Rambo because it was cheaper. Again, most of them were
off the shelf Hoppe titelists and he just added some enlays. Even
Balabushka began using that same cue as stock until he later
upgraded.
Bob Johnson
modern cues might not be a fair comparison, but if compared to cues from the
same time, Rambow's are supposed to be very nice. I know most of Ray
Schuler's cuemaking ideas stemmed from what he learned from Herman Rambow,
regardless of what FL has said. (I believe FL has claimed he personally
taught Ray everything he knew about making a cue!).
--
Bob Johnson, Denver/Thornton, Co.
bo...@cris.com
"Dan White" <dwhi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TPadnbNUQsst41HY...@comcast.com...
Zen Cueist
> I didn't know Rambow was considered the Stradivarius of cuemakers. That's
> the first I've heard that said (in the website). In fact, didn't someone
> say they don't play particularly well, or am I making that up?
You're right, Rambow and Stradivarius didn't play particularly well.
So what?
Dick
Rambow's butt collar was a different measurement than that one has.
Dick
--
RHN Custom Billiard Cues
Building fine cues for real pool players at
affordable prices. All work guaranteed.
Dick Neighbors Cincinnati OH
(513) 233-7499
web-site http://dickiecues.com
e-mail di...@dickiecues.com
"Zen Cueist" <ZenC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:x9ydna5mKvl0XVHY...@comcast.com...
fast...@gmail.com
> That is a Willie Hoppe Titlist conversion cue but it was not made by Rambow.
> Rambow's butt collar was a different measurement than that one has.
>
> Dick
>
> --
> RHN Custom Billiard Cues
> Building fine cues for real pool players at
> affordable prices. All work guaranteed.
> Dick Neighbors Cincinnati OH
> (513) 233-7499
> web-site http://dickiecues.com
>
> news:x9ydna5mKvl0XVHY...@comcast.com...
>
> > "Dan White" <dwhite...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> >> I didn't know Rambow was considered the Stradivarius of cuemakers.
> >> That's
> >> the first I've heard that said (in the website). In fact, didn't someone
> >> say they don't play particularly well, or am I making that up?
>
> > You're right, Rambow and Stradivarius didn't play particularly well.
>
> > So what?
>
> > --
> > David Hakala
> > The Zen Cueist
> > Denver, CO USA
> > "Pool excellence is NOT about excellent pool, it's about becoming
> > someone."
*************************************************************************************************************************************
its the bull shit you bozos put out that floors me. Bob say:
same time, Rambow's are supposed to be very nice. I know most of Ray
Schuler's cuemaking ideas stemmed from what he learned from Herman
Rambow,
regardless of what FL has said. (I believe FL has claimed he
personally
taught Ray everything he knew about making a cue!).
*************************************** Bob, do me a favor, please
do not print lies you just make up, when you do, that means you are
now a POS like debra Li, that is her stick. Ray Schuler was like my
father, we were very close. I began playing with his cue for 3-c in
1985. I began using his pool cue in 96 and still do. Now, all I do
is break with it. Ray's pin was like the Titelist, rambo, short, but
those busted up when we began playing the harder 9 ball game in the
early 60's. Ray learned brass was weak and he made his with stainless
steel and put a collar around it. I know nothing about making a cue,
never have, never will. I do know what I want in a cue to make it
play however. Ray would listen to me and he did make me what I asked
for. That was part of our deal. Ray was my final teacher, I learned
so much from him it will fill a book. He did acknowledge I taught him
some new stufff too. I miss me greatly. The invention of the bangkok
birch shaft was a joint experiment where I designed it and he built
it. I broke about 10 world records using it.
Zenebozo say:
You're right, Rambow and Stradivarius didn't play particularly well.
Oh vey, here we go again. My grandfather had a strad and I grew up
playing it until I switched to the trumpet when it was gone.. They
don't play well. You've got to be kidding? When he died my uncle
took it to Italy and sold it and retired on the money. Same laughter
on the Rambo, they played great. I played with mine which Herman made
for me in his factory when I was in town in 65. It does not play,
bozo, that was the cue Mosconi ran 526 with. Fatty used it as well
and that was the cue in the Hustler movie. I used it for 14.1 and
retired it in 93, it now hangs on my wall. I played 9 ball with an
original balabushka which I retired and put in a safe deposit box in a
bank in 1999. I now play with a bushka copy ltd-2.
So since you bozos don't know shit about cues, shut up and listen
here, you might learn sometin. FL
Until you get a rambo, bushka or strad in yo fat whittle fingers and
play them, then shut the fuck up.
Zen Cueist
news:45cccb2e$0$28161$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> That is a Willie Hoppe Titlist conversion cue but it was not made by
> Rambow. Rambow's butt collar was a different measurement than that one
> has.
You make Rambow sound like a one-trick machine, Dick.
Roger Orsulak
> the first I've heard that said (in the website). In fact, didn't someone
> say they don't play particularly well, or am I making that up?
>
> dwhite
>
>
Dan:
Herman was the first cuemaker inducted into the BCA Hall of Fame. His bio
in my '78 rule book starts, "Called the Stradivari of his trade..."
that's where the seller probably got it from..
Roger
РР**йй
fast...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry Grindinger wrote:
> He did acknowledge I taught him
> some new stufff too. I miss me greatly.
HAHAHAHAHA!! ah, Grindinger - you are priceless.
Please, don't EVER stop posting here - I've started printing
out and using your posts in my 6th grade class as examples
of how bad writing can get, without a proper education.
The kids have even started a new saying around the school; 'man,
you're Dumber than Guninger'.
You go, Larry! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
(back to lurk mode)
Ed Chauvin IV
scrawled:
>I've never heard the playability of a Rambow criticized. Of course, more
>modern cues might not be a fair comparison, but if compared to cues from the
>same time, Rambow's are supposed to be very nice. I know most of Ray
>Schuler's cuemaking ideas stemmed from what he learned from Herman Rambow,
>regardless of what FL has said. (I believe FL has claimed he personally
>taught Ray everything he knew about making a cue!).
I'm pretty sure FL has claimed to have given François Mingaud the idea
of putting a leather tip on a cue.
--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Bob Johnson
"Ed Chauvin IV" <edc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Mail Man
>
> That is a Willie Hoppe Titlist conversion cue but it was not made by
Rambow.
> Rambow's butt collar was a different measurement than that one has.
>
OK, Dick, I have also already noted earlier in this thread that the joint
pin looked suspicious, like a joint pin that Helmstedter would have used on
a 60's Adam. So, who do you thing made this? Helmstedter? Balmer (Palmer
cues)? I don't think (because of the joint pin) it would have been either
Balabushka, Szamboti or Paradise -- although styles and construction methods
were pretty similar between all five of these and bear a great resemblence
in several ways to the cue in question.
Besides, didn't Rambow use a skinnier joint pin mounted in the shaft with a
flat joint face, rather than a piloted joint pin in the butt? Again, I say
I am NOT AN EXPERT on this stuff and still just trying to learn. I have
seen very few of these old cues with my own eyes, but I have seen lots of
crappy pictures -- it's still real confusing to me and actually hard for me
to make any solid determination. However, that joint pin really sticks out,
to me.
Dan White
news:rM7zh.17482$5q6....@newsfe17.lga...
>
> Dan:
> Herman was the first cuemaker inducted into the BCA Hall of Fame. His bio
> in my '78 rule book starts, "Called the Stradivari of his trade..."
>
> that's where the seller probably got it from..
> Roger
>
Ahh, I see. I'm not sure it's the best analogy, though. As far as I'm
aware, Stradivarius fiddles still play better than anything else.
dwhite
Roger Orsulak
You tell him.
Roger
Donald Tees
Not by themselves. They require a fiddle *player* better than average
to make them sing.
Donald
Zen Cueist
>> "Roger Orsulak" <normo...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:rM7zh.17482$5q6....@newsfe17.lga...
>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Herman was the first cuemaker inducted into the BCA Hall of Fame. His
>>> bio
>>> in my '78 rule book starts, "Called the Stradivari of his trade..."
>>>
>>> that's where the seller probably got it from..
>>> Roger
>>>
>>
>> Ahh, I see. I'm not sure it's the best analogy, though. As far as I'm
>> aware, Stradivarius fiddles still play better than anything else.
One of Stradivarius' secrets was the soaking of wood for several months in
brine. The resultant restoration of wood cells' rounded shape improves
wood's acoustic properties. He and other violinmakers of his time also
treated wood with various chemicals to repel wood-boring insects, a practice
that was abandoned in later tiimes and may partly responsible for the loss
of the Strad sound. The wood filler used to seal seams and the stiffening,
glass-impregnated varnish also contributed to the Strad sound.
Texas A&M professor Joseph Nagyvary claims to have replicated the
Stradivarius methods and is selling violins guaranteed to be the closest
thing to Strad ever.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114369.html
http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com/
I'm a big fan of submerged old-growth maple for cue shafts. The "hit" -
vibration - they provide is sweeter than anything else. See
TimelessTimber.com.
Donald Tees
> Dan White wrote:
>>> "Roger Orsulak" <normo...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:rM7zh.17482$5q6....@newsfe17.lga...
>>>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> Herman was the first cuemaker inducted into the BCA Hall of Fame. His
>>>> bio
>>>> in my '78 rule book starts, "Called the Stradivari of his trade..."
>>>>
>>>> that's where the seller probably got it from..
>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>> Ahh, I see. I'm not sure it's the best analogy, though. As far as I'm
>>> aware, Stradivarius fiddles still play better than anything else.
>
> One of Stradivarius' secrets was the soaking of wood for several months in
> brine. The resultant restoration of wood cells' rounded shape improves
> wood's acoustic properties. He and other violinmakers of his time also
> treated wood with various chemicals to repel wood-boring insects, a practice
> that was abandoned in later tiimes and may partly responsible for the loss
> of the Strad sound. The wood filler used to seal seams and the stiffening,
> glass-impregnated varnish also contributed to the Strad sound.
>
> Texas A&M professor Joseph Nagyvary claims to have replicated the
> Stradivarius methods and is selling violins guaranteed to be the closest
> thing to Strad ever.
>
Where on earth do you get this crap?
Stradivari kept close notes, and taught violin making for close to 60
years. His school and notes still exists, and he mentions not a thing
about salt water, though he does spend volumes on tuning wood by ear, as
well as the selection of wood.
I expect you read the notes, or an article by Joseph Nagyvary, that
first made this claim. He had no evidence from the time whatsoever, and
made it as a result of the analysis of a single wood shaving. There are
at least a dozen other explanations for what he found, most of them a
lot more plausible than Stradivari lied for his entire career.
Stradivari *invented* the modern violin. It did not exist when he
started his career, just as the two piece cue did not exist when Rambow
started his. His craftsmanship had nothing to do with secret
ingredients. It was all sponsored work(sponsored by the Medici family)
and was all published at the time.
Here is what a 1690 fiddle sounds like. The violin was signed by Joesph
Amoti, who Stradivari apprenticed under. It is a long-neck model,
slightly different in shape from the modern Stradivari, with slightly
different soundholes. The modern violin is based on his 1712 model, 22
years later. It has never seen salt water.
www.donald-tees.ca/test/takeone.wav
Donald
lfigueroa
> Where on earth do you get this crap?
oh, come on, Donald. FL has been doing this for years now -- copying
and pasting stuff others have written to make himself sound more
knowledgeable and important than he could ever possibly be. If you
haven't figured that out by... oh. wait a minute. You weren't talking
about him.
Sorry.
Lou Figueroa
Donald Tees
I suppose "how it sounds" is in the ear of the listener.
Donald
Zen Cueist
> Where on earth do you get this crap?
Same place I get you, Donald. Coincidence? ;-)
> Stradivari kept close notes, and taught violin making for close to 60
> years. His school and notes still exists, and he mentions not a thing
> about salt water, though he does spend volumes on tuning wood by ear, as
> well as the selection of wood.
>
> I expect you read the notes, or an article by Joseph Nagyvary, that first
> made this claim. He had no evidence from the time whatsoever, and made it
> as a result of the analysis of a single wood shaving. There are at least
> a dozen other explanations for what he found, most of them a lot more
> plausible than Stradivari lied for his entire career.
I wouldn't call protecting trade secrets "lying", Donald. Many a cuemaker
keeps a few tricks hidden from his helpers, against the day when they go
into competition with him.
> Stradivari *invented* the modern violin.
Andrea Amati invented the modern violin in 1546. Indeed, Stradivari's very
first violin bears the inscription, in Latin,
"Made by Antonio Stradivari of Cremona, pupil of Nicolo Amati, in 1666."
Donald Tees
> "Donald Tees" <donal...@donald-tees.ca> wrote
>
>> Where on earth do you get this crap?
>
> Same place I get you, Donald. Coincidence? ;-)
>
>> Stradivari kept close notes, and taught violin making for close to 60
>> years. His school and notes still exists, and he mentions not a thing
>> about salt water, though he does spend volumes on tuning wood by ear, as
>> well as the selection of wood.
>>
>> I expect you read the notes, or an article by Joseph Nagyvary, that first
>> made this claim. He had no evidence from the time whatsoever, and made it
>> as a result of the analysis of a single wood shaving. There are at least
>> a dozen other explanations for what he found, most of them a lot more
>> plausible than Stradivari lied for his entire career.
>
> I wouldn't call protecting trade secrets "lying", Donald. Many a cuemaker
> keeps a few tricks hidden from his helpers, against the day when they go
> into competition with him.
>
Perhaps.
And perhaps you are just blowing wind.
The jump from "many a cue maker keeps a few tricks hidden" to "I know
Stradivarii's secrets" is a big jump.
Donald
Zen Cueist
> Stradivarii's secrets" is a big jump.
Then you should not attempt it. Nagyvary and I certainly haven't.
Donald Tees
>> Stradivari *invented* the modern violin.
>
> Andrea Amati invented the modern violin in 1546. Indeed, Stradivari's very
> first violin bears the inscription, in Latin,
>
> "Made by Antonio Stradivari of Cremona, pupil of Nicolo Amati, in 1666."
>
>
The modern violin was not created until the 1712 model. Indeed, the viol
was made before that, but it is a different shape. I do not have a
picture of one handy, but the neck met the body in an entirely different
way. The long-neck pattern came out in the 1680's and 90's, and is
closer to the modern pattern, but the ratio of neck to body is slightly
different. It is a long neck that we have here at the house, and is
recorded in that pointer a couple messages back.
The 1699 instrument you refer to is *not* a modern violin. It is called
a viol. In 1666, Antonio Stradivari was a beginning apprentice.
(found pictures of a viol)http://vdgsa.org/pgs/stuff.html
The treble viol was the predecessor instrument of the modern violin. It
was held quite differently, and played quite differently.
Donald
Zen Cueist
delusion.
http://www.si.edu/RESOURCE/FAQ/nmah/amati.htm
--
David Hakala
The Zen Cueist
Denver, CO USA
"Pool excellence is NOT about excellent pool, it's about becoming someone."
"Donald Tees" <donal...@donald-tees.ca> wrote in message
news:eqo086$1st$1...@aioe.org...
Donald Tees
>> The jump from "many a cue maker keeps a few tricks hidden" to "I know
>> Stradivarii's secrets" is a big jump.
>
> Then you should not attempt it. Nagyvary and I certainly haven't.
>
>
I did not either. I based my response on 50 years of professional
violin playing, a masters degree in music, and 2 years studying violin
making in Italy at the Stradivari school.
You based your's on gossip found on the Internet, and a fast mouth.
Donald
Zen Cueist
> Zen Cueist wrote:
>>> The jump from "many a cue maker keeps a few tricks hidden" to "I know
>>> Stradivarii's secrets" is a big jump.
>>
>> Then you should not attempt it. Nagyvary and I certainly haven't.
>>
>>
>
> I did not either. I based my response on 50 years of professional violin
> playing, a masters degree in music, and 2 years studying violin making in
> Italy at the Stradivari school.
Where they teach that WHO invented the violin? :-)
You based your response entirely on opinion and snot, Donald. Now go saw
some horsehair and calm down.
Donald Tees
> Yawn. Tell it to the Smithsonian, Donald. I've no more time for your
> delusion.
>
> http://www.si.edu/RESOURCE/FAQ/nmah/amati.htm
>
Did you actually *read* that cite? It contradicts nothing I have said,
and supports nothing you have said.
You are still bowing smoke.
Donald
Donald Tees
> "Donald Tees" <donal...@donald-tees.ca> wrote
>
>> Zen Cueist wrote:
>>>> The jump from "many a cue maker keeps a few tricks hidden" to "I know
>>>> Stradivarii's secrets" is a big jump.
>>> Then you should not attempt it. Nagyvary and I certainly haven't.
>>>
>>>
>> I did not either. I based my response on 50 years of professional violin
>> playing, a masters degree in music, and 2 years studying violin making in
>> Italy at the Stradivari school.
>
> Where they teach that WHO invented the violin? :-)
>
Yes.
As I said earlier, the modern version of the violin was invented by
Antonius Stradivari, and is based on his 1712 to 1720 models. It evolved
from an earlier instrument called the viol, which was first built in the
early part of the previous century.
There are notable differences between the instruments of the 1600's and
the modern version, as built in 1712. The 1712 model is the basis of all
modern violins.
Donald
Zen Cueist
:-)
--
David Hakala
The Zen Cueist
Denver, CO USA
"Pool excellence is NOT about excellent pool, it's about becoming someone."
"Donald Tees" <donal...@donald-tees.ca> wrote in message
news:eqo1kh$58t$1...@aioe.org...
Dan White
I know you are the expert on the subject, and I won't disagree. However,
isn't it true that Strads still play better than any other violin? I mean
if Itzhak Perlman was testing out various violins, won't he get the best
sound out of the Strad? I doubt the same holds true of the Rambow.
dwhite
Donald Tees
> I did. It says Amati made violins, long before you claim they were invented.
> :-)
>
>
65 years, to be exact. I stated the "modern" violin. And I am correct.
The viol was of the violin family, but was *not* the modern style of
violin. I have an Amati sitting on the kitchen table, and can show you
the differences if you are interested.
Quite aside from that, the argument started when you made an
announcement, speaking like the right hand of God, that Stradivari made
his violins from wood soaked in salt water.
Such pronouncements from on high tend to be disputed, particularly when
made with so little grounds. Being able to read the Internet is not the
same thing as actually studying the subject.
Donald
Dan White
Donald - I'm reading this dispute with some interest. Does it appear to you
that the Smithsonian is being a little loose with the term "violin"? It
would seem that there was another phase (or more) between the viol and what
you term the "modern" violin. What would you call those instruments --
"early" or prototype violins? It seems the Smithsonian just lumps them all
together.
Personally I think somebody needs to learn when to bow out of a
conversation. Even Pierre Salinger made himself look silly when he got
duped by an internet hoax.
dwhite
Donald Tees
> isn't it true that Strads still play better than any other violin? I mean
> if Itzhak Perlman was testing out various violins, won't he get the best
> sound out of the Strad? I doubt the same holds true of the Rambow.
>
> dwhite
>
Well, I have heard a thirteen year old beginner play a half million
dollar violin of that age, and it still sounded like shit. (my roomy
gives lessons).
I expect it is not that different in some ways. Efram playing with a
Rambow will still play superb pool, and a beginner with a Rambow will
still miss a lot.
I do agree slightly ... an expert fiddle player will sound best on the
best instrument, but I doubt the Rambow would make a very big difference
to Efram over any good cue he is use to.
BTW, I am not an expert. My roomy is. Listening to an hour of fiddle a
day for 5 years, and talking to fiddler's on a daily basis has made me
somewhat knowledgeable on the subject is all. Not to mention being
surrounded by books on the subject.
My roomy Terry has several fiddles. The differences are enough I can
tell which one he is playing by ear, but nowhere near the difference
between him playing and one of his students.
Donald
Zen Cueist
> I mean
> if Itzhak Perlman was testing out various violins, won't he get the best
> sound out of the Strad? I doubt the same holds true of the Rambow.
Dan, this comparison is way out in apple-orange land. The results of a
violinist's playing are sound, so of course the acoustic properties of the
violin make a big difference in results. Slight changes in violin
construction methods and materials make a big difference in a violin's
acoustics. But similarly slight changes in cues do not make signficant
differences in a pool player's results. Only the player can do that.
I doubt very much that one could identify a Rambow from the ongoing
statistics of a group of players who passed it around among themselves.
Rambow is called the "Stradivarius" of cuemaking because he played a
similarly seminal role in his field's history.
In fact, Rambow should be known as the "Amati" of cuemaking. :-)
Dan White
news:nOydnSVCPuXpCFLY...@comcast.com...
> "Dan White" <dwhi...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> Rambow is called the "Stradivarius" of cuemaking because he played a
> similarly seminal role in his field's history.
I don't think so. When people compare things to a Strad, it is generally
because they are saying it is the absolute best. My contention is that a
Rambow doesn't have as good a hit/feel as a modern cue. I could be wrong
because I've never even seen one, but I thought I read here a long time ago
something to that effect. I think Deno was the expert at the time.
>
> In fact, Rambow should be known as the "Amati" of cuemaking. :-)
HA! I was going to point our your inconsistency if you didn't. You know
you can't have it both ways. Strad either invented the violin or he didn't.
If he didn't, then why do they call Rambow the Strad of cues.
dwhite
Zen Cueist
>> I did. It says Amati made violins, long before you claim they were
>> invented.
>> :-)
>>
>>
>
> 65 years, to be exact. I stated the "modern" violin. And I am correct.
>
> The viol was of the violin family, but was *not* the modern style of
> violin. I have an Amati sitting on the kitchen table, and can show you the
> differences if you are interested.
The viol and violin are of distinctly different families, as anyone with a
Master's degree in Music surely knows. As the Smithsonian article says,
Amati made viols and rebecs before he made violins. He introduced the
seminal innovations that sharply distinguish the violin from those
predecessors. Try walking about while playing a viol, for just one example.
I suppose one can arbitrarily choose any contemporary variation on Amati's
invention and claim that it distinguishes the "modern" violin; steel
strings, for instance. Be my guest.
> Quite aside from that, the argument started when you made an announcement,
> speaking like the right hand of God, that Stradivari made his violins from
> wood soaked in salt water.
>
> Such pronouncements from on high tend to be disputed, particularly when
> made with so little grounds.
I don't care to reproduce all research that has been done on every subject I
mention in a newsgroup, Donald. I just assume that every reader knows my
words are my opinions and how to confirm or refute them.
I notice you do the same.
What IS the sound of God's right hand speaking? There's another koan coined
in RSB! :-)
> Being able to read the Internet is not the same thing as actually studying
> the subject.
What subject - the Internet; the history of stringed instruments; how to
play the violin? It's your imprecise language that permits you to endlessly
squirm around, Donald.
One who can "read the Internet" most certainly can study history on it, and
learn things that are not to be learned in graduate school, apparently.
Zen Cueist
> My contention is that a
> Rambow doesn't have as good a hit/feel as a modern cue.
:-) Hand a Rambow to any Cuetec owner and I'll wager he likes the Cuetec's
hit better.
> I could be wrong
> because I've never even seen one, but I thought I read here a long time
> ago
> something to that effect. I think Deno was the expert at the time.
Yes, Deno probably held the opinion that Rambow cues hit better than any
others more firmly than most.
>> In fact, Rambow should be known as the "Amati" of cuemaking. :-)
>
> HA! I was going to point our your inconsistency if you didn't. You know
> you can't have it both ways. Strad either invented the violin or he
> didn't.
> If he didn't, then why do they call Rambow the Strad of cues.
Because they have Master's degrees in music instead of history.
Donald Tees
>
> Donald - I'm reading this dispute with some interest. Does it appear to you
> that the Smithsonian is being a little loose with the term "violin"? It
> would seem that there was another phase (or more) between the viol and what
> you term the "modern" violin. What would you call those instruments --
> "early" or prototype violins? It seems the Smithsonian just lumps them all
> together.
>
I think they are using it as a generic term to mean "the modern violin
and it's immediate precedents".
You will notice they define the start as the first four stringed
instrument of the tuning. By that definition, the history of the
Mandolin starts on the same date, and, I think, they are correct.
That does not mean that the first F5-style Mandolin was invented in
1555, which is the argument being made here.
Namely: the *modern* violin was invented by Stradivari, and is based on
his 1712 through 1720 models.
*Many* modern violins actually carry a sticker saying "1712
Stradivaris", which excites a few buyers at local flea markets.
That is not false advertising, it is acknowledgment of a specific
design. The maker is following the published specifications for the 1912
model Stradivari violin. This was a world class business, and they sold
designs.
Things have not changed a lot today. People still model instruments on
the pattern of a famous maker. In the violin world, Stradivari is when
it happened. There are probably only a handful of non-Stradivari
"violins" produced per year anymore, and those most likely handcrafted
for a pre-renaissance musical specialist. Stradivaris is a trademark for
Antonio Stradivari and defines the instrument, like "Les Paul" defines a
specific type of guitar.
So no, I do not think the Smithsonian is being particularly loose. It
was an introduction, and what a specialist reads into a term and the
general meaning of the word will always be different.
Donald
Donald Tees
> "Zen Cueist" <ZenC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nOydnSVCPuXpCFLY...@comcast.com...
>> "Dan White" <dwhi...@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>> Rambow is called the "Stradivarius" of cuemaking because he played a
>> similarly seminal role in his field's history.
>
> I don't think so. When people compare things to a Strad, it is generally
> because they are saying it is the absolute best. My contention is that a
> Rambow doesn't have as good a hit/feel as a modern cue. I could be wrong
> because I've never even seen one, but I thought I read here a long time ago
> something to that effect. I think Deno was the expert at the time.
>
>> In fact, Rambow should be known as the "Amati" of cuemaking. :-)
>
> HA! I was going to point our your inconsistency if you didn't. You know
> you can't have it both ways. Strad either invented the violin or he didn't.
> If he didn't, then why do they call Rambow the Strad of cues.
>
> dwhite
>
I though I read somewhere that Rambow invented the modern joint. If
that is the case, then then maybe Stradivari was closer ...
On the other hand, Stradivari was much more influential than that. The
development of the 1912 Strad was part of a larger project by the Medici
combine. There was no standardized means of musical notation at the
time. The treble clef was designed around the 1912 model. In the next
eight years, he finished the family, four instruments, and four clefs
that represented the height of the technology for the time. Those four
musical clefs are *still* the major notational system for music.
Donald
Donald Tees
> "Zen Cueist" <ZenC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nOydnSVCPuXpCFLY...@comcast.com...
>> "Dan White" <dwhi...@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>> Rambow is called the "Stradivarius" of cuemaking because he played a
>> similarly seminal role in his field's history.
>
PS-I replied to that last post, hit the button, thought "damn I should
have changed that topic to "OT"".
Then I read the topic, and stared laughing.
Donald
Donald Tees
> One who can "read the Internet" most certainly can study history on it, and
> learn things that are not to be learned in graduate school, apparently.
>
Read some summarization of a complex subject, and begin to make
assumptions that would startle anybody with a more than trivial grasp of
the subject ... is closer to the truth.
It is always easy to learn things if their veracity does not have to be
considered. Its faster.
What you read anywhere about "history" is an opinion of the historian.
Including me, of course.
Donald
Dan White
Of course you mean 1712, right? I didn't know his instrument basically
created the notation, too.
thanks,
dwhite
Zen Cueist
> Dan White wrote:
>>
>> Donald - I'm reading this dispute with some interest. Does it appear to
>> you
>> that the Smithsonian is being a little loose with the term "violin"? It
>> would seem that there was another phase (or more) between the viol and
>> what
>> you term the "modern" violin. What would you call those instruments --
>> "early" or prototype violins? It seems the Smithsonian just lumps them
>> all
>> together.
>>
>
> I think they are using it as a generic term to mean "the modern violin and
> it's immediate precedents".
I think they mean what they say.
> You will notice they define the start as the first four stringed
> instrument of the tuning. By that definition, the history of the Mandolin
> starts on the same date, and, I think, they are correct.
"They" who, and where? The only Smithsonian article referenced in this
thread is this one, which does not contain the word "four" or single digit
"4". No "strings" or "stringed", for that matter.
http://www.si.edu/RESOURCE/FAQ/nmah/amati.htm
> So no, I do not think the Smithsonian is being particularly loose.
If they used the word "violin" loosely, they wouldn't use the words "viol"
or "rebec".
> It was an introduction, and what a specialist reads into a term and the
> general meaning of the word will always be different.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA!!! Ain't THAT the truth!. A specialist is someone who learns
more and more about less and less until finally he knows everything about
nothing, and spends the rest of his life stridently insisting that he's
right about it.
And he IS right - about "nothing".
Zen Cueist
> Dan White wrote:
> I though I read somewhere that Rambow invented the modern joint. If that
> is the case, then then maybe Stradivari was closer ...
He invented the piloted joint, with the pin in the butt.
Zen Cueist
LOL! Subject lines are there to remind us where we started, not where we're
going. :-)
Donald Tees
The notational part is fascinating, is it not? The Medici family
basically financed the whole lot. The later development of the piano
rested largely on the theoretical work done in the violin family.
There were a lot of other factors involved as well. The printing press
had a century to mature, and was becoming common. Publishing was the
frontier of technology.
In many ways, Stradivari made classical music possible. The next century
became the century of the piano as a result. (IMO, of course) We are
getting out on the fringes there, though.
Donald
Roger Orsulak
"Dan White" <dwhi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2-ydnZLlnvRsDVLY...@comcast.com...
> Donald - I'm reading this dispute with some interest. ... >
> dwhite
>
>
Hey, You started it!
Roger
pltrgyst
>Yawn. Tell it to the Smithsonian, Donald. I've no more time for your
>delusion.
>
>http://www.si.edu/RESOURCE/FAQ/nmah/amati.htm
From http://www.si.edu/RESOURCE/FAQ/nmah/stradv.htm:
"Antonio Stradivari was born in 1644, and established his shop in Cremona,
Italy, where he remained active until his death in 1737. His interpretation of
geometry and design for the violin has served as a conceptual model for violin
makers for more than 250 years."
Game, set, and match, Mr. Tees.
{Plonk}, Mr. Hakala, aka Fast David (FD). Your boorishness has exceeded your
entertainment value.
-- Larry (the slow one...)
Zen Cueist
>>http://www.si.edu/RESOURCE/FAQ/nmah/amati.htm
>
> From http://www.si.edu/RESOURCE/FAQ/nmah/stradv.htm:
>
> "Antonio Stradivari was born in 1644, and established his shop in Cremona,
> Italy, where he remained active until his death in 1737. His
> interpretation of
> geometry and design for the violin has served as a conceptual model for
> violin
> makers for more than 250 years."
>
> Game, set, and match, Mr. Tees.
WTF does that have to do who invented the violin? Copernicus' interpretation
of astronomy has served as a conceptual model for astronomers for more than
250 years, but he didn't invent astronomy.
Likewise, Stradivari did not invent the violin. Andreas Amati did.
Furthermore, I wonder if Stardivari's is "a" conceptual model or THE
conceptual model of today's violin making. If it's the only one, then violin
making is a dead art.
Dan White
Er, uh, (looking like Homer)... I guess I forgot about that part! D'OH!
dwhite
John W. Pierce
>
> Furthermore, I wonder if Stardivari's is "a" conceptual model or THE
> conceptual model of today's violin making. If it's the only one, then
> violin making is a dead art.
Depends on what you mean exactly by "conceptual model". Five-string acoustic
violins exist. Are those a different conceptual model? There are many
different kinds of electric violins. Some are solid bodied with magnetic
pickups (like a solid body electric guitar). Others are solid bodied with
piezoelectric pickups under the bridge, or in the bridge, or some
combination of those. Others use transducers in various orientations (to
distinguish between bowed and plucked sounds). Besides solid bodied electric
violins, there are hollow bodied ones with various arrangements of various
kinds of pickups, and some "semi-solid" bodied ones have sealed resonating
chambers hidden in the body. There are violins with six and seven played
strings, and some with sympathetic strings (like a lute, for example). Some
have frets. There's a woman who has various strange "sort of maybe inspired
by violins" instruments (I've forgotten her name) that do things like use
recording tape on a bow that's drawn over a recording head on the
"instrument".
So, what's the minimal definition of a "violin"? What constitutes a
different conceptual model for it? And after we resolve those pressing
questions, we can move on to "what instrument did Pepys really mean when he
used the word 'viallin'?" Excerpt from the Diary entry for April 6, 1660:
"In the afternoon, W. Howe and I to our viallins, the first time since we
came on board .... " (They're in the service of Edward Montague on his
voyage to bring Charles back to England.)
Commentators on the Diary invariably transcribe "viallin" as "violin". This
could be disregarded as ignorance on their part, except that Latham and
Matthews do the same thing in their edition (really the only one worth
having) and the thoroughness of their research and consultation with
specialists (e.g., in 17th century music) is legendary. However, Donald
assures us this cannot possibly be correct as the violin wasn't invented
until 50 years or so after Pepys first mentioned playing it. So, what
instrument could it really be? If we can resolve this issue, RSB will have
collectively made a truly significant contribution to scholarly research (I
am not being sarcastic when I say that). To start us off, we can be fairly
certain as to what instruments it *isn't* as he mentions a bunch explicitly,
distinct from his reference to his "viallin", to wit: viol, lyre viol, bass
viol, and arched viol. I've only mentioned the (presumably) bowed string
instruments; we should be able to ignore the 10 or 15 others Pepys mentions
in the course of the Diary (e.g., spinnet, theorbo) as not all of them are
string instruments and none of them are bowed (which seems to be a major
characteristic of "viallins" as well as violins).
Hmmm.... Pepys could be a treasure trove for us.... Once we've dealt with
violins, we could discuss the relationship of "pall mall" ("pelemele" as
Pepys wrote it) to early forms of "pool".
-- jwp
Zen Cueist
--
David Hakala
The Zen Cueist
Denver, CO USA
"Pool excellence is NOT about excellent pool, it's about becoming someone."
"John W. Pierce" <j...@thyrsgeat.org> wrote
MarkZero
I'm constantly amazed at the power of my memory. I'm gonna need a really
high power blue light to take a pic of that aluminum cue. Guess I'll
return it to my neighbor now.
Mark0 <-- it's redder than my neck!
-------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Mail Man
>
> I'm constantly amazed at the power of my memory. I'm gonna need a really
> high power blue light to take a pic of that aluminum cue. Guess I'll
> return it to my neighbor now.
>
>
> Mark0 <-- it's redder than my neck!
>
That's OK, Mark -- I'm dyselxic, too ... ;->.
Mike Collier <--- wrong side of ball, wrong side of spectrum = no diff.!
Oak Harbor, WA