THE COLOR OF WOOD

There is a tendency among players to equate very dark colored wood with high quality. Here it is easy to be misled. In fact superb wood comes in a broad palette ranging from yellow through red and light to deep brown. The grain structure that denotes great wood can occur in different colors and some of the finest bows of the early makers Tourte, Eury and Pajeot are made of light brown or blond wood. Wood of poor quality also can be light or dark in color although there is a typical light orange hue to some of the lesser grades.

I have planed and given a coat of varnish to some rough bow blanks and then photographed them to show this variation. It’s better to see the actual wood but at least the photos give an idea. The first photo shows two high quality sticks from Espirito Santo state in Brazil showing the variation in color ranging from yellow to brown. The second photo shows an outstanding piece of Espirito Santo wood below a very poor grade of pernambuco wood that is too light and weak for a quality bow.

The issue of wood color is further complicated by the fact that pernambuco wood has often been treated to color the surface a dark reddish brown. Among other things, the natural dye in the wood can be set by applying nitric acid, by exposing the stick to ammonia fumes or sometimes both. This was a standard practice from the mid-nineteenth to mid twentieth century and bows were uniformly treated this way whether of high or low quality. For example, bows by fine bowmakers like Lamy, Vigneron and Sartory were treated with nitric acid. The effect was only on the surface and apparently any harm it did to the wood was insignificant. James Tubbs used a process that turned his sticks nearly black.

Here is a close-up picture of two nice bows by Alfred Lamy, a violin and an octagonal viola bow dating to around the turn of the century. These bows were treated with nitric acid and the wood was probably naturally lighter in color.

During the last three decades the new generation of bow makers has usually chosen to make bows without darkening the wood. This is in part because these younger makers were willing to invest in wood of exceptional beauty and this encouraged dealers and millers of the wood in Brazil to locate the best qualities. It is simply unnecessary to treat beautiful pernambuco and doing so risks losing some of the wood’s transparency and purity of color. But sunlight brings up the color in a nice way as the ultraviolet rays oxidize the surface. So we often put our bows in the sun for a few hours or even put them under an ultraviolet lamp in the winter.

THUMB PROJECTION

There doesn’t seem to be an established word for the part of the frog above the throat that sit behind the thumb so I’ll call it the thumb projection for lack of anything better. The thumb projection was always squared off by bow makers in the early to mid nineteenth century. In addition it was left with rather sharp angles because at that time, players often played with the hand further up the stick. By the time Voirin developed his distinctive light and rounded style in the later half of the 19^th century the hand position had settled further back with the thumb up against the projection; I believe like it is today. Voirin completely rounded his thumb projection and Lamy, Sartory and everyone else followed suit.

Many players preferred the earlier sticks and adapted to having their thumb on the angular frog and in most cases the frogs had become a bit worn, softening the angles. They normally didn’t put their thumb right on top of the projection like you can do with a Voirin and instead set the thumb on the thumb-leather and against the projection. But everyone transitioning fro a Sartory to a Peccatte would have to make this adjustment.

When early in my career I moved from the classic late 19^th century style to a style of bow rooted in the 1830’ies, I had to face the fact that leaving the thumb projection sharp would be uncomfortable for many of my clients. But rounding the projection as Voirin would have done on a frog like a Persois simply looks horrible and somewhat akin to grafting a camel’s head on a horse. I felt strongly that a stick that articulated in the early 19^th century style should look appropriately in that style as well. I decided that the answer was a fine chamfer instead of simply rounding off the angle a bit. A chamfer has the effect of keeping lines looking crisp and often the eye forgets its there. Rounding the projection slightly would make it look like the frog was antiqued in one place. I remember showing the luther, Bernard Sabatier on the rue de Rome, my first bow with a chamfered thumb projection. He didn’t like it. In time though, no one noticed it and players adapted to it well. Since that time I have never had a player not adjust in a week or two.

Cellists are manipulating a bow much more strongly that any violinist and it has become common for players to ask for surgical tubing over the projection and thumb leather. Although it lacks in aesthetic appeal it protects the bow in an area that can become quite worn. A common repair to cello bows is to graft wood into the depression worn in the stick by the thumb just behind the thumb-leather.

CELLO BOW CAMBER

At this stage the camber has been finalized and the stick, which has been octagonal up to this point is rounded. The taper of the stick and its curve or camber is critical to how the bow will play and sound. Because of the power needed to drive the large diameter cello strings the bow must be far more resistant than a violin bow. On the other hand there is an incredible range of expressivity to the cello’s sound and without flexibility the cellist cannot access this potential. Yet there is no consensus between bow makers as to what will work best and this is for good reason because there is no consensus between fine players either. I have measured bows belonging to a number of today’s great players and they vary in every way; weights ranging from 76 to 90 grams and widely ranging camber concepts and stick graduations.

The bow maker can approach commissions it two ways. One is to simply do what they think is best and the players who like these bows will buy them. The second to tailor the bow specifically to the player but in this case one inevitably has ideas on how to reach this goal. Although I’m in the later group, the solution is not to simply copy the bows a player has. If they want another bow its because they believe they can unlock more potential from their instrument or their technique with a different stick. It is possible that something quite different would be ideal for them if they can make the technical adjustment. They have no doubt tried certain bows belonging to colleaugues that they loved. If it was a well-known maker like Dominique Peccatte or Eugene Sartory, that gives us quite a bit of information up to a point because each of these maker’s work also varies considerably. In the end the maker has to make an intuitive call on the camber, stick selection and graduations or taper that he hopes will give his or her client all the power and potential for expression they need. There is a kaleidoscopic interchange of different elements that effect the hoped for outcome, a bow that joins both power and technical response with the flexibility to bring out the full spectrum of a cello’s sound.