PDF about bows

[ingo62]

Hi,
I don't know if it was mentioned here before:

Here:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bowmaker/book/...onthecouch.pdf

is a nice PDF about bows, written by the bowmaker Andreas Grütter. The author lives in the Netherlands, the PDF is written in English.
There's a HTTP-Version on his page, too.

Greetz
Ingo

[jfv]

This is one of the most informative and interesting
things on bows that i've yet seen. Many things I
had not thought about before, like the physics of
the interaction of the bow, string, instrument...

Well worth the read... thanks for the pointer

[reedo35]

Very interesting read...And not just a bunch of dry physics equations, either. Very well written.

[Kam]

Very cool!

[evan_phi]

neat.

that was informative.

[bassbo]

Thanks INGO for sharing the site. I'm one of the guilty ones who had a German frog put on a French stick that I liked. I realize something "just ain't right", but I've kind of gotten used to it. Funny, a bow maker did it for me. As of right now I'm in the market for a fairly nice German.
Steve

[Jeff Moote]

Big thank you to ingo for sharing this with us, but I must disagree with those who think this is a good source of fact.

I dislike greatly that he is a proclaimed "why" type, a psychologist of bowmaking and goes on to offer quasi-scientific explanations of the "what" and "how" issues which he begins by saying are the realm of people who think in such a way (that is, of musicians and craftsmen).

If all that was being offered was some psychological theory about what makes good bows, that'd be fine, but he seems underqualified to offer many of the explanations he does for the mechanisms of the bow.

There are wiser folks than me on this board for sure, but it doesn't take an engineer to pick out a "pseudoscientist"

People should stick to what they know.

[jfv]

Originally Posted by Jeff Moote

Big thank you to ingo for sharing this with us, but I must disagree with those who think this is a good source of fact.

I dislike greatly that he is a proclaimed "why" type, a psychologist of bowmaking and goes on to offer quasi-scientific explanations of the "what" and "how" issues which he begins by saying are the realm of people who think in such a way (that is, of musicians and craftsmen).

If all that was being offered was some psychological theory about what makes good bows, that'd be fine, but he seems underqualified to offer many of the explanations he does for the mechanisms of the bow.

There are wiser folks than me on this board for sure, but it doesn't take an engineer to pick out a "pseudoscientist"

People should stick to what they know.

He seems "underqualified" you say? With your great devotion
to true 'science' I'm sure you researched the matter, can you
give us the results of your efforts?

Naturally with the depth of your years in acoustics and the
physics of solids I'm sure you are going to give us a terse
summary of the true 'facts' of the matter.... because if you
cant then arent you little more than a <SHUDDER>
pseudoscientist yourself....

Go find www.talk-wannabe-intelectual.com, I'm sure
you'll find a calling there.

[Don Higdon]

Perhaps you could articulate the differences between what he says about the workings of the bow and the words of Pickering on the same subject.

Originally Posted by Jeff Moote

People should stick to what they know.

Agreed.

[Jeff Moote]

Originally Posted by jfv

because if you
cant then arent you little more than a <SHUDDER>
pseudoscientist yourself....

I'd rather follow my own words and stick to what I know. I didn't claim to be an expert on bows, but rather pointed out that this fellow is really saying a lot of things that don't sit well with me.

It was really the "Concerning the Author" that set me thinking that I might not like his writing, and as I read on, I came to statements such as:

Originally Posted by Andreas Grütter

As in psychology, empirical and subjective explanations are also accepted. My findings are therefore not completely provable, but I hope they will be understandable. (Page 5)

in which he admits these things which are bound to cause problems. Statements such as the following are vague at best...

Originally Posted by Andreas Grütter

A good tone is produced when all parts or qualities of a bow combine harmoniously. (Page 10)

--

I didn't mean to offend anyone, but rather meant to point out that what this fellow says may be interesting, but it is certainly very subjective and should be taken as such.

In fact, my original post probably just should have been:

Originally Posted by reedo35

Very interesting read...And not just a bunch of dry physics equations, either. Very well written.

I'd rather the equations.

--

Cheers,
Jeff

[Don Higdon]

This reflects nothing so much as general societal left-hemispheric bias which has grown unabated for a century.
Equations are really swell. I imagine alot of them were used in designing the Edsel and the Hindenburg.
If you haven't figured it out by context, Pickering is an engineer. There's not a whole lot of difference between what he says and what Grutter says.
If engineers could make better basses, they would. They don't.
I'm reminded of Jung: "It is fashionable stupidity to regard everything one cannot explain as a fraud."
The Schnitzer ergonomic basses are a triumph of intuition dictating to technology. Each is one of a kind, each was snapped up by a major orchestra player.

[Jeff Moote]

Originally Posted by Don Higdon

This reflects nothing so much as general societal left-hemispheric bias which has grown unabated for a century.
Equations are really swell. I imagine alot of them were used in designing the Edsel and the Hindenburg.

I really don't see the problem with such a bias, as long as it is recognized that it exists.

If you haven't figured it out by context, Pickering is an engineer. There's not a whole lot of difference between what he says and what Grutter says.
If engineers could make better basses, they would. They don't.
I'm reminded of Jung: "It is fashionable stupidity to regard everything one cannot explain as a fraud."
The Schnitzer ergonomic basses are a triumph of intuition dictating to technology. Each is one of a kind, each was snapped up by a major orchestra player.

Your points are well taken. The idea I was hoping to get across is that a craftsman, perhaps more an artist himself (or herself) than anything else can create a great instrument - and they do, but to write an essay which attempts to explain the principles which make a good bow (in this case) yet avoid fact very carefully is not to my taste.

I think such folks who make these great instruments should continue to do so, and to explain their method in no different a manner than they were taught - as craftsmen: artists with their tools.