According to wikipedia it is not first reconstruction of "viola organista’’.
"Akio Obuchi built several instruments as early as 1993.[1] In 2004, a modern reconstruction of the viola organista by Akio Obuchi was used in a concert in Genoa, Italy .
In 2013, Sławomir Zubrzycki constructed and performed on his own viola organista[2] at the Academy of Music in Kraków."
Interesting sound, a bit of a cross between a oboe and harpsichord with an air of church organ about it.
I do feel though this type of sound is more adapt towards lighter, slower tempo music and may not be played in its element in the video along with the article. I could very much imagine it being fantastic compliment music wise for stage shows and given the time and period this was conceieved, then too me that makes perfect sense. Perhaps if you got an electric guitar and went back 500 years and played music of the time and period then the aspect that certain instuments lend themselfs much easier too certain music types and styles and tempo would stand out more.
I do though often wonder how Da Vinchi would of got on with a patent system of out times and the endless media distractions, still think of the fun he would have with a 3D printer and in part many great inventions of past time never came about thru cost, time and in most cases technology of the time. This on the other hand does not appear to be a tecnology based limitation and would appear to be something that may of been made and past into anominimity beyond the blueprints per say. Though we do not know beyond "The effect is a sound that da Vinci dreamt of, but never heard; there are no historical records suggesting he or anyone else of his time built the instrument he designed.". Certainly would appear to be a commision based design and something that would be less elaborate than most and completely viable for the time to construct and with that I'm inclined to believe he did hear it, even if it was only in his head.
it's very very cool, but i'm gonna be honest, i just want to pick it apart. as a string musician of many years, it sounds to me like a shitty viola that can play more notes at once. no offense to ol' da vinci.. but i think it could be improved. i say this because a huge amount of the skill in playing a bowed instrument is controlling changes of bow direction and the beginnings of bowings. if you aren't skilled enough, your bow transitions and beginnings are jarring, rather than the liquid sound of a skilled string player.
the reason this machine sounds so bad to me is that its design removes a lot of the variables that are important for nuanced tone quality. bowed instruments simply have a lot more variables involved than struck instruments such as pianos or harpsichords. in a violin, viola, or cello, the bow has uneven tension along its length, allowing for many different articulations - it also means that when you start the bowstroke at the top or bottom of the bow, the hair tension is higher at those points. so, given an even downward bow pressure, the start of the stroke at either end of the bow has less friction and therefore less volume than the higher-friction middle, creating a naturally smooth attack as you draw the bow. this says nothing of the ability of the musician to change the bow pressure along the bowstroke, another variable.
the viola organista, on the other hand, presses a metal string to a rotating bow of even tension with constant force. since the string and bow are both evenly tense along their length in this design, there is no possibility of controlling the attack and release of a note, giving a binary, on/off, jerky sound with less continuity between notes.
but theres even more to this. a traditional bowed instrument not only has uneven tension in the X-axis (the bow axis), but also has uneven tension in the string axis. violins, violas, and cellos all have a bridge. the bridge not only transmits the vibration to the soundboard, it creates a tension differential just like the bow. but the resonant property of the bridge means that the string tension corresponds to resonance. the closer you bow to the bridge, the louder, fuller, and more resonant the tone. but also, the closer you bow to the bridge, the less the tension of the string is affected by the downward bow pressure (since the string is higher tension). so, bowing closer to the bridge, the resonance is large and doesn't change very much with differing bow pressure, while bowing further away from the bridge, the resonance is relatively less but is also affected more by bow pressure (since the string is less tense, so increased downward pressure by the bow pushes the string down and raises its tension).
the point of all this shit is to say that traditional bowed string instruments are incredibly complex dynamic systems and a lot of their dynamism has been thrown away in this design, yielding something that offers less tonal control with no tangible benefits beyond being able to bow more strings at once. sorry da vinci.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. I don't think anyone involved in this thing, from da Vinci, to the modern builders, to the performer, to the audience, thinks for one iota that the purpose or destiny of this machine is to replace or diminish string musicians to any extent.
I see this as an exercise in technology and history, and a celebration of what was certainly an innovative idea in da Vinci's time. Really, it makes more sense to think of the viola organista as a synthesizer or a sampler, invented centuries before the modern electric and electronic incarnations.
On the more practical side, before synthesizers and samplers, this would probably have been a ground-breaking tool for composers. To be able to play and hear rough arrangements of string pieces (again, not to replace string musicians, but rather to easily hear a much closer approximation than any contemporary keyboard instrument could produce) would no doubt have been amazing for composers in that period.
It has plenty of room to be perfected and I see no reason to discard the possibility that it could become a legitimate instrument in a concert hall.
There are plenty of possible variables in how you play it - the sharpness, speed and strength of hitting keys... the rate at which you spin the bow... and damping. It might be considered more complex than a piano.
It's a beautiful instrument for what it is, but absolutely not as much diversity or complexity as a piano. You can hear the entire music is at almost a single volume, more like a pump organ. The reverb you hear is from the room. I think it's an interesting and new way to hear Marais (which for me was the most successful of the pieces) but it's a period piece, the same way the harpsichord never made much past the 18th century.
note: Actually interesting to read the Youtube comments on this.
>think of the viola organista as a synthesizer or a sampler
Definitely. Or even as a kind of crude sequencer, as demonstrated (I believe unintentionally) by this test clip of a similar instrument: [1]
The instrument is called a geigenwerk, which I gather is approximately just a smaller viola organista. The builder's page [2] has excellent documentation of the inner mechanism, which sadly was absent from the video of the OP.
Cellist-Organist-luthier here. Don't be silly. Imagine arguing against the merits of the organ by saying "It gives up the expressiveness of the Oboe/Flute with no tangible benefit beyond being able to play more notes at once." Keyboard music is meaningful in different way. What it loses in the articulation of individual voices, it gains back in the interaction of multiple tones and voices, for lack of a better way to say it.
This critique is using a 1820+ vocabulary for what I would call a "Baroque" instrument. "The right way to evoke feeling is by using expressive articulation on an expressive, lyrical melody line (among other differences)." It perfectly befits a Baroque keyboard instrument to work better with ornamentation and polyphony.
As a side note, I think the tone could gain a lot from gut strings. I don't think period strings work as well with steel.
Please note that among bow instruments there's also the hurdy-gurdy, which is very traditional too and does also employ a "rotating bow of even tension with constant force". One may like its sound or not, but for some thousand years there seem to have been quite many people who did like it. Thus I believe it renders big part of your argument moot. That said, the hurdy-gurdy allows for variable speed of the wheel, so some more variation in this area, but I don't believe it's right to say the viola organista is bad because it is different than violin.
Furthermore, because of its "trumpet" and bourdon strings, the hurdy-gurdy also allowed a bunch of extra sound effects. It has been called the "synthesizer of the middle ages".
The hurdy-gurdy also allows some variation by using more or less force when pressing the keys. This may also be the case with the viola organista, although I suspect less so.
Sure string instruments give you more control but at the end of the day, it's only timbre, harmonics and timing (plus the mysterious immeasurable Q factor which I dub musicality). If this gives you the ability to generate more harmonic components through multiple chords and changes the timbre, then it's a valuable device. I mean a cheap analogue monosynth for example has many good qualities and is not short of utility in music.
I'm sure the harp players were just as pissed as you are when they knocked it on its side and added hammers and keys.
OK, there's two big things this instrument lacks - slurring and attack. Also it lacks the ability to control volume as well as a viol (but that's less important IMO). It can only play detache, which isn't really that common for viols.
It's still a neat instrument, but it falls into the uncanny valley a bit - it kind of sounds a bit like a bunch of strings, with very mechanical phrasing.
Of course, you could say the same about organs being mutant cyborg flutes, so I guess there's a place for it.
I defer to your musical expertise, and everything you said makes a lot of sense. One idea that came to me while listening to the video was wondering if pressure on the key controls how much pressure is applied by the string against the bow as a way to let the performer vary the sound. That might be a partial solution to what you're describing.
As a mechanical engineer, I have to respond to your terminology. The tension in a bow is the same all along the length of the bow. It has to be; it's the force the bow hair applies to the connection points at both ends, and if it wasn't the same along the whole length parts of the hair would be pulling harder than other parts which isn't physically possible.
I think the effect you're describing has to do with pressure perpendicular to the bow: how hard the performer is pressing the bow against the string. That deflects the bow hair, and for a given pressure there's greater deflection in the middle of the bow than at the ends. Also, the deflection changes the tension all along the bow, which changes the sound.
I can definitely see how you'd think the tension is different at the ends of the bow, because your feedback is the sound that is made and you can only measure the tension at one point of the bow at a time. Assuming you're applying equal pressure, when you measure the tension at the ends you're getting a different result than when you measure in the middle, because the deflection is different. If instead you reduce the pressure to near zero you should hear the same sound all along the length of the bow, because you have constant (zero) deflection and constant tension.
>it's very very cool, but i'm gonna be honest, i just want to pick it apart. as a string musician of many years, it sounds to me like a shitty viola that can play more notes at once.
And viola is a shitty bass violin by the same logic.
You have to appreciate it for what it is, not for how it compares with another DIFFERENT instrument.
If there is any control over the dynamics of this instrument, either by key pressure or pedal cranking speed, then I see a lot of potential for music written specifically for it.
I have a few issues with the claims or omissions made regarding this instrument. The piano forte wasn't invented until the 18th century. A few people have already mentioned that the hurdy-gurdy is very similar in function to this instrument. This instrument looks like four hurdy-gurdies stacked for an extended octal range stuck inside a piano enclosure. So what exactly was Da Vinci's contribution to this instrument and how much of Da Vinci's design was "augmented" by the builders?
This is pretty amazing stuff! Makes me wonder what else is written in that Codex Atlanticus. Anyone got a link to a digital version of the original manuscript?
PS: Yes, the word "Codex" especially in conjuction with Da Vinci reminds me of Assassin's Creed
Thanks! A much better video since you can see partly how the instrument works. I like his decoration of the instrument, including the text and year in latin; I guess he is planning for this reconstruction to survive the centuries where the others didn't.
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/music/leonardo-da-vin...