Born in 1950, Roger Zabinski earned a Bachelor's Degree in Music History and Literature in 1973 from the University of Minnesota.During his studies there, he met Vaido Radamus, who trained him in violin making and introduced him to making bows.About the time of Mr. Radamus' death in 1976, Roger met Martin Beilke, an internationally known bowmaker who worked in Minneapolis. Roger studied with him until Martin's death in 1979. In the summer of 1984, Roger attended the New Hampshire bowmaking course, learning the French methods of bow making there from William Salchow.In 1985, Roger was elected a member of the American Federation of Violin and Bowmakers; a year later he received his journeyman's certificate from that same institution. In May of 2011 of he was elected a member of the Entente Internationale des Maitres Luthiers et Archetiers d’Art.In November of 1986, Roger was awarded a Gold Medal for his violin bow at the Violin Society of America International Competition. He has also received numerous Certificates of Workmanship from the VSA. He presently lives and works in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
BOWS
Since 1978, Roger Zabinski has made over 750 bows for violin, viola, cello, bass, and some ancient models as well. He has used a number of models over the years, including Eugene Sartory, Dominique Peccatte, and Francoise Tourte. Roger now works entirely with his own original pattern, developed from the spirit of the early and middle 19th century French bow makers. Inspired by the early French ideal, these bows possess the same characteristics of the bows of that period.Roger’s bows are works of art. The pernambuco he uses is always of exquisite character, usually figured, and never stained to develop the color. He uses shell products from the Asian Pacific, which display soft but luminous colors, delightful to the eye. These bows are artifacts of rare beauty and function.Roger Zabinski’s bows are played by professional musicians and conservatory students all over the world. The Smithsonian Instititute owns a specially executed quartet of his bows.
Speech he gave at the 2010 VSA Convention at Cleveland
When we speak of innovation in process of developing the carbon fiber bow, the first and most important idea to establish and underline is that Jeff and I have never understood the term innovation as something revolutionary; rather, we have always understood developing carbon fiber as a bowmaking material is an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary one. In particular, in developing the Diamond series of the Coda bow we have always understood and proceeded with that assumption, i.e., that anything we develop in carbon fiber ought to, and even must be, evolutionary, if it is to be a succesful effort, something that is truly useful for the modern player. And it must be an evolutionary one for three reasons: first, because of the history and development of the violin bow over the last 200 years. Secondly, the stability of the laws of physics; the laws of physics do not change. That is, the physical demands made on the carbon bow as an acoustic body interacting with the violin are precisely the same as those made on the wood bow. Thirdly, the stability of the demands of the musician. A musician demands the same of carbon fiber as they would on the wood bow- and as we will see, the demand is remarkably stable even in regard to the period of music being performed. The stabilizing effect of these three areas demand a process of development from what has gone before, and must be in continuity with the past. These three areas will make the substance of the rest of my comments. First we will take up the historical sweep of the bow as we come to know it. We know what works in wood designs; we can observe the broad sweeps of development of the bow over the last 200 years; we can generalize about the characteristics of one generation of makers to the next. And I emphasize 'generalize', because we can find so much variation within an epoch, and even within one maker's output. For example, the early- mid 18th c. French examples are much revered, but often take a fine player with a developed bow arm to draw out and appreciate what a bow of that epoch has to offer. Typically a bow of that period will produce a rich color palate, but can be a little difficult to control. Later models, late 19th c., players generally find easier to control, more reliable, less demanding on the bow arm, but perhaps lacking the the complexity of the prior generation. Many of the 20th c. models continue a similar playability, but often become too stiff to develop great sound. However, above all we have to remember that there are two elements here which do not change, and these impinge strongly on Coda's evolutionary approach. This leads us to the second and third areas of discussion. As I said above, the laws of physics do not change, and this has a defining impact on the success of any bow design. The violin is an acoustic body which has specific requirements which when met, will optimize its potential. The violin has a particular mass, size, and shape; it is a physical stucture under a fairly well defined tension. Such a well-defined acoustic system is going to demand a rather specific mass in the bowshaft to activate it, regardless of what the shaft is made of. Experience tells me that the shaft weight of a wood bow must be between 35- 38. If I make a bow outside those specifications, it will sit in my box for years. I don't think Jeff would be very happy about sitting on his carbon fiber inventory that long. Interestingly enough, the demands which instrument makes on the bow shaft don't change much either, whether it be baroque, transitional or modern. I have made bows for players of all these periods, and surprisingly, that same shaft weight of 35- 38 gms is necessary for them all. My violn making colleagues tell me thae same is true of the set up of both modern and baroque instruments; they are all but identical.Lastly, our third point, is that the demands of a player don't change much either. A player regardless of time period will want a bow that is strong but flexible, even from end to end, without an obtrusive nervouness; they want it to bounce when demanded, but stable when stability is required. True, the cambering concept does change from one historic period to the nest, but the players needs remain the same, which is a bow that plays easily and reliably, without having to adjust his bow arm and technique to make his music. These are the three constants that the laws of physics, the violin and violinist will demand, regardless of the material used in making the shaft. Years of experience as a maker of wood bows- to date over 750 bows, I have come to a feeling, understanding for the dimensions, weight, balance, resistance and flexibility that make for an easily playable bow yet still is capable of producing a complex sound capable of the nuance that the advanced and professional player want to have at their command. I remember that Jeff, after four or five years of developing the first models of the Coda bow, sometime in the mid- late '90's, he would stop by my shop, discussing the technical problems he had to solve. I remember at one point he said, eThe more I work with carbon fiber the more I am in awe of what pernambuco wood is and what it can do.f That is the one thing I have always admired about Jeff- his respect for the materials, both for wood and for carbon fiber, his understanding of the strengths and limitations of each, using them, manipulating them; always bringing out the best qualities that are necessary and useful for the musician. The particular strength of carbon fiber is that it is a malleable material; one can engineer into a carbon fiber shaft the same physics that defines the playing characteristics of a fine wood bow; one can engineer a physical system that allows the player to use his bow arm and interior sensibilties to produce a nuanced and controlled sound. Carbon fiber is a unique material which can and should be utilized for its inherent properties, i.e., its malleability and receptivity to particularizing resistance, flexibility, balance points. It is in these areas that the new Diamond series has greatly excelled CodaBow's older, first efforts. So back to the idea of innovation, and my involvement in delelopoing the new Diamond series. We have understood the deveopment of the Diamond series as an evolutionary process, rather than a revolutionary one. We decided that the late 19th c. idea of a bow, specifically Andre Vigneron, was best suited to the musicians who might be using our product; one quick inspection of the new Diamond bow will tell you that we did not slavishly copy the Vigneron model; but we did use his approach; the general time period aesthetic of the head; the taper of the shaft, and its interrelated camber; the weight and balance. One significant departure from the Vigneron model is the frog. The full dimension of a Vigneron frog created weight and balance difficulties that were better solved by the frog we settled on, which is slightly higher, but narrower. The slightly higher frog incidentally helps to develop a more nuanced sound which enhances the tonal capabilities of carbon fiber. My first job in the process was to make a wood pattern; I designed the head pattern which is unique to the Coda Diamond series; I fashioned the shaft with its taper and camber. I presented these to Jeff who in turn digitalized the data and sent that data off to the machine shop who made the steel mold in which the Diamond shaft is formed. For a period of a year and a half, Jeff and I went back and forth, talking, refining the precise weight, balance, resistance that we understood would best meet the demands of the modern musician. I am happy and pleased with the collaboration, I believed we have succeeded very well.
Zabinski,Roger
