Tertis model viola?

February 6, 2014 at 04:25 PM · I have one made by the originator, Arthur Richardson. It's about 16 3/4" in body length and has a very even, cello-like sound, but I find the huge lower bouts disconcerting - even though I support the instrument mostly with my left hand, it's hard to feel a good sense of balance with my head because the lower bouts are so vast. Maybe if I had a bigger head...

February 6, 2014 at 05:45 PM · I used one for quite some time. It has a very large sound on the lower end, but mine tended to be quite bright on the A string.

February 6, 2014 at 06:01 PM · Two of my students play Tertis-model violas (or based on), and I used to have one some years ago.

For the kids, the benefit is that they play slightly smaller instruments (15.25" and 15.75") but they sound like bigger ones. They have an easier time reaching the high register because the upper bouts are much smaller than they would be on a more proportional looking model.

They weren't terribly expensive (under 2k) so they were a pretty good "bang for the buck." The issues include not fitting in most cases nor shoulder rests (the lower bouts are incredibly wide), and as the above poster has mentioned the A string quality is a bit on the bright side for my tastes.

February 6, 2014 at 06:25 PM · My teacher, the late Winifred Copperwheat, played a Richardson. She was a small lady with quite small hands. The greatest influence on her technique was Dounis, whose method involved playing with the left thumb almost horizontal under the neck, bringing the hand further round towards being above the fingerboard and making the thumb virtually the instrument's only manual support. I don't think she'd have stood much chance of doing it any other way. While at school I used a Tertis-influenced large viola made by Mr Nunn of East Ham. I think I reached all the notes I needed to reach at the time, but I was using steel strings on both viola and violin, so didn't get the best tone.

February 8, 2014 at 04:49 PM · There is an inherent acoustical problem with widened, deepened violas:

- The deep "air" (Helmholtz) resonance depends on the interior air volume, as well as the size of the f-holes (a smaller hole gives a lower resonance, but over fewer notes, and less loud).

- The loudest wood resonance depends mainly on the length of the body rather than its width.

(All this comes from my own observation, confirmed by reading the work of C. Hutchins etc.)

On my 16" narrow viola, the air resonates at Bb on the G-string, the wood at F# on the D: a very well balanced response, but a "mezzo" rather than "contralto" Quality.

The 16 3/4" Tertis-Model (and some other big-bottomed designs) lowers the air resonance to F on the C-string, but the main wood resonance stays nearer to E or F on the D. This results in a separation of deep, sonorous low tones from the "woody" upper ones, rather like a French horn doubled at the octave by an oboe.

The viola A-string already has a shrill tendency, being perched on the edge of the bridge.

I'm afraid to say that the "best" viola design will be long, shallow, and slim....

Work in wiew for osteopaths?

May 5, 2014 at 10:23 PM · In the case of my Tertis viola, one by Olof Anderson that I bought by auction from Tarisio, I have been able to substantially solve the problem with the A - which was initially ruining the whole thing - via careful string choice. The tendency for the A to be too bright and shrill shows up clearly with Jargar and Larsen, but the obligato steel A turned out - after being played in for a few days - to be wonderful. I use that, a helicore or jargar d - the later darker and more beautiful, but much harder to play because of lower reponsiveness - and some combination of helicore and spirocore g and c (right now helicore medium g and spirocore medium *silver* (not tungsten) c. Don't try to use anything not steel on a Tertis model - it does not work. But the softer obligato a makes a world of difference. A very fine professional violist (a sub in the Chicago symphony) was anxious to buy my instrument - a pretty good instrument.

May 6, 2014 at 02:44 AM · It's funny, Bob - I owned that same instrument for a bit. I'd also gotten it on Tarisio. I decided it was too large for me, and reauctioned it.

I actually liked Jargar and Larsen As on it, as well as Dominants for the three lower strings with the silver d - but I liked Helicore for the three lower strings as well. Thick d strings seemed to bring out wolfs on the d string for me.

Glad you're enjoying it!

May 6, 2014 at 07:03 AM · Years ago a colleague of mine in the Hallé Orchestra who had visited Tertis and played a Tertis-model viola told me that Tertis himself recommended using Jargar "soft".

A maker, Wilfred Saunders, who made violas for Tertis, told me that the great man favoured a sound-post position way outside the "A" string side of the bridge - dangerous !!

May 7, 2014 at 12:28 AM · Jargar "soft" may well suit the uncomfortably long string length. Interesting about the soundpost: I wonder if it makes for a "nicer" A-string tone?

Just as an experiment, I swapped the A & D strings on my viola: the A lost its strident quality, and the D became noticably clearer. Normally, the viola A is right over the sound post, like the violin E.

Having the SP well to the right may "liberate" the A (as in my experiment), but I have found more honks and wolf-notes this way.

May 7, 2014 at 01:26 AM · I don't think the string length of the original (and probably many subsequent) Tertis models is actually unusually long - probably comparable to those of most violas a bit over 16" in body length.

May 7, 2014 at 11:57 AM · The good thing is that they are not expensive, you can find them in auctions.

The model may favour a quick response and a good dynamic range, but it may lack colours in the sound.

May 7, 2014 at 04:59 PM · "I don't think the string length of the original (and probably many subsequent) Tertis models is actually unusually long "

I think I read somewhere that Tertis' original intention was for the string lengths to be the same as those recommended by the manufacturers - but then he commissioned "official" working drawings and the draughtsmen GOT IT WRONG !!

So, maybe an early Richardson Tertis-model viola would work better than one of the later ones - but I don't play the viola now so cannot comment.

May 11, 2014 at 11:58 AM · Oops..

May 11, 2014 at 12:04 PM · I have just acquired John White's biography of Tertis; there are side by side reproductions of Richardson's original drawings and Lovett Gill's "official" ones. Scaling up the measurements, Richardson had a string length of 14-3/4" (37.5cm), and Lovett Gill, 15-3/16" (38.6cm), thanks to a noticeably longer neck, and a slightly longer stop, with the f-hole slightly further down. Even Tertis disapproved of the newer plans, which did not always correspond to his declared measurements.

The later models may suffer from higher string tension, and narrower f-holes which lower the air resonance, but make it more "pointed" and less efficient. There were also acrimonious discussions on the bass-bar.

Another of Tertis' "bees in bonnets" was insisting on Prim strings; I imagine that this, plus the extra tension, contributes to a boomong, monochrome quality? Richardson advocated gut.(For The youngsters amongst you, I, only discovered Dominants in 1976, and didn't like them... I started in 1963 on plain gut A & D, and soon went to steel strings for financial reasons).

Apparently those violists who have a Richardson version are still happy with them, but the succeeding models can be bought cheaply...