If Stradivari Were Alive Today...

Watching the responses to our voicing videos at the Galloup School, I sometimes wonder what people think instrument making actually involves. A microphone or a computer screen appears, and someone decides the builder is cheating. Apparently, the acceptable version involves a luthier tapping a piece of wood and knowing what to do through intuition alone. Taken far enough, this turns the craft into bullshit voodoo, with the maker cast as some kind of shaman who conjures instruments from the beyond. I find that view of the work ridiculous, especially when people invoke Stradivari to defend it.

Before treating Stradivari as an authority on which tools we should be allowed to use, it is worth looking at how he worked. The Museo del Violino in Cremona preserves hundreds of objects from his workshop, including drawings, wooden forms, and tools. His instruments also changed throughout his career. In 1690, he developed the longer, narrower violin outline known as the “long pattern.” By around 1700, he had abandoned it and returned to a broader outline. He experimented with shape, arching, and proportion, keeping some ideas and discarding others.

Changes in string technology gave him further opportunities. Gut strings wound with fine metal wire became available around the beginning of his career. According to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, these strings allowed Stradivari to reduce the size of the cello while retaining the required range, making the instrument easier to play. He adapted his work to take advantage of a technological development elsewhere in the craft.

That is the Stradivari I find worth studying: a working maker who revised his designs, used repeatable forms, and responded to new possibilities. Turning him into a mystic obscures the practical work we can actually examine.

We should also be honest about the limits of the historical record. I am not claiming that Stradivari tuned tops to specific frequency targets or practiced anything resembling modern FFT analysis. Modern scientific work on free-plate tuning belongs to a much later period. We do not need to invent a historical version of our current methods to make the point.

The better question is whether using a reference pitch or an analyzer would somehow corrupt the process. If a builder taps a soundboard and listens to its pitch, nobody objects. If a microphone and FFT analyzer identify the frequency more precisely, suddenly the same observation becomes suspicious. I do not understand what has supposedly been lost. The builder still has to decide whether that information matters and how to use it.

At the Galloup School, our voicing curriculum includes evaluating wood density and modulus of elasticity, measuring deflection, examining tap tones with FFT analysis, studying speed of sound in the material, and keeping records. These methods let us compare pieces of wood and relate what we hear and feel to measurements that can be taught, recorded, and revisited.

That matters in an educational environment. A student can listen alongside an experienced builder while also seeing the measurement associated with what they are hearing. The measurement gives us a shared reference instead of requiring the student to accept that the instructor simply “knows.” Experience still matters, but now there is more information available to understand what that experience is responding to.

I rely on intuition constantly in my own work. To me, intuition is accumulated pattern recognition. You handle enough wood, build enough instruments, and hear enough results that certain things become recognizable before you can fully explain them. Measurement does not threaten that ability. It gives me another way to examine it.

A caliper does not stop me from feeling thickness with my fingers, and a tuner does not stop me from hearing pitch. Acoustic analysis belongs in the same category. I can use my hands, ears, experience, and instruments together. I see no virtue in voluntarily knowing less.

Some of the reactions to this work remind me of “bean soup theory.” The expression comes from a bean soup recipe video that attracted comments asking what to do if you dislike beans. It describes the habit of encountering something online and immediately asking how it accommodates your own preferences, even when the thing was never intended for you.

I see the same behavior when someone watches our voicing process and responds by announcing that they prefer to build by feel. That is fine. Build by feel. Our video has not required you to change anything. The fact that you would not personally use the method does not identify a problem with the method.

There is another version of this reaction that I find even stranger. Someone with no practical knowledge of instrument making watches what we are doing and invokes Stradivari to shame or discredit it. Maybe they have read something about him or watched a documentary. Somehow, that becomes enough authority to lecture people who actually build instruments about which tools they are permitted to use.

Anyone can question our methods. A layperson can notice something important, and professional experience does not make a claim automatically correct. What bothers me is the confidence to dismiss a process without first understanding what it is doing.

In these comments, Stradivari becomes borrowed authority. “Stradivari did not need this” is presented as though it settles the issue. Of course he did not use an FFT analyzer. He also did not have one. That tells us nothing about whether the measurement is useful now, and it tells us nothing about what Stradivari would have thought of equipment developed almost three centuries after his death.

I recognize the same reflex in blanket hostility toward CNC machining and AI-assisted work. The tool appears, and some people treat its presence as evidence that the work has become less legitimate. There are serious questions worth asking about both technologies, including what decisions are being automated, what the maker still controls, and whether the resulting process is actually better. Those questions require looking at how the tool is being used. Rejecting it because it makes some part of the work easier is not much of an argument.

This seems tied to a particular romantic image of craftsmanship. The real craftsperson is supposed to work primarily with their hands and intuition, preferably using methods old enough to feel traditional. Once software, automation, or precise measurement enters the picture, some viewers feel that something authentic has been taken away.

I am not interested in preserving that image for them.

Merely watching someone work does not give the viewer ownership of the process. You can dislike it, question it, or decide that you would rather work differently. What I find repulsive is the lack of self-awareness involved in assuming that somebody else’s process should conform to your idea of what craftsmanship is supposed to look like, particularly when you know very little about the work itself.

There are legitimate criticisms to make of acoustic measurement. How repeatable is the test? What does the number actually tell us? Does the relationship we think we are seeing survive into the completed instrument? Those are useful questions because they engage with the method itself. Calling it “cheating” because a computer appears in the video does not.

The romantic version of Stradivari also does him a disservice. His surviving workshop materials and instruments give us plenty to study without assigning him supernatural intuition. His molds vary in dimensions and proportion. His designs changed. Some experiments stayed and others disappeared. That is already interesting enough.

Instrument making involves complicated interactions between material properties, structure, acoustics, and the eventual experience of the player. No measurement captures all of that, and I would be suspicious of anyone claiming that one did. There will always be interpretation and judgment involved. There will also be things we can measure, compare, and learn from.

Bryan Galloup’s analytical approach developed from collecting relatively basic information about material strength and weight into a larger effort to track builds and understand their results. That is the practical purpose behind the work: learn something from one instrument that can inform the next. At the school, I want us to be able to explain what we did, record it, and examine whether it helped.

That approach seems entirely compatible with the history of instrument making. We inherit methods from earlier builders, test them, modify them, and add information they could not obtain. Respecting tradition does not require preserving the limitations of an eighteenth-century workshop.

I cannot know whether Stradivari would use a CNC machine, AI, or an FFT analyzer if he were alive today. Nobody can. What we do know is that he spent his career revising instruments and responding to the tools, materials, and developments available in his own time. If we are going to invoke his name in arguments about modern craftsmanship, that part of his example deserves at least as much attention as the fact that he worked without a computer.

Related article: Craft, Technology, and the Superstition of Suffering