Can I ask why on earth would anyone want to accompany the Exultet with violin?? I know some here have had to play the organ for the celebrant, and, with respect to those whose pastors have asked, even that’s going too far...

I am accompanying it on the organ because the priest asked that I do so. It is probably a good idea since, despite a good voice, I don't think he could stay on pitch through it all. I am using the J. Michael Thomson version revised for the new missal, available from WLP for around $1.90. Buy the download and save shipping costs. It has the missal music and text, of course, and an organ accompaniment. I am not aware of any rules or regulations that either forbid accompanying the Exsultet, or any legislation requiring it. That being the case, your preference is as good as anyone else's, keeping in mind that you may have been told to accompany it.

Despite preferences to the contrary - and that is all they are, preferences - remember that organs were introduced 1,000 or so years ago to accompany chant. It is an ancient and venerable practice, so no apologies should be offered to those who disagree.

Well, it's also worth noting that the traditional practice of the church has always been that the organ is silent, or at least only when required, until the gloria. So adding something that is not genuinely needed to support the singing doesn't mesh very well with that, to say nothing of the artistic merit.

If you are in the EF, of course you are following a different set of rules. So are we in the OF form. What I like about the Thompson accompaniment is that it is mostly drone-like. It isn't obtrusive.

So adding something that is not genuinely needed to support the singing doesn't mesh very well with that, to say nothing of the artistic merit.

Said by someone who has the ability to stay on pitch. LOL. I wish I had a few more singers like that. Last year a deacon with a good voice sang the Exsultet. He doesn't read music and simply got lost in it. It was a disaster that had to be fixed before this year. Fortunately, a priest stepped up and volunteered. He needs a light accompaniment, but that's OK. I would rather have a priest sing it, anyway.

If you are in the EF, of course you are following a different set of rules. So are we in the OF form.

I didn't say EF. I said the church's traditional practice (cf. GIRM no. 42)

And I'm not even totally against accompaniment in every single case, but it should be used to support the pitch (like a very simple organ accompaniment), not something ornamental like a violin.

I don't "get" a valid rationale for this pairing (maybe if there were musical buzzing bees.) If there is supreme moment for the simplicity of the singular voice imparting the "in toto" of the Christian theology of Resurrection, this proclamation would be it. In accord with the notion that sung chant (even if not in Latin) comprises a language unto itself, if the cleric/lay cantor is capable, what else is necessary? It's intrinsically counter-intuitive.

Thompson is a wonderful fellow who breathes decorum and propriety (and directed the polyphony at my wedding, not that I'm biased or anything). If it is to be done accompanied or chorally, do it that way...

That aside, all this violin thing illustrates is how everyone wants in on the Exsultet always. Why Gregorius Magnus banned his deacons from singing...

There is greater precedent for a serpent.
A violin would be awfully innovative.