The World’s Best Violins Sing Like Humans
atlasobscura.com
atlasobscura.com
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads...
I was particularly struck by this effect when I pitch shifted certain strings by certain amounts - the timbre took on a distinctly vocal quality. I think it was when I shifted the A string up one octave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VOkrddp6M8
Her instrument is a Vuillaume, and this instrument was owned by Pagnini. (Paganini had an unfortunate betting habit. He lost his favourite Stradivarius in one of those betting bouts. Later, the French luthier Vuillaume built him one just like his Stradivari. Paganini liked it as much as his lost instrument).
I remember watching an Igor Oistrakh masterclass where he complained about the sound a young violinist was making on her cheapish violin. He said "play it like this" and then played the same note on his vastly more expensive instrument. I think everybody in the room was thinking something along the lines of 'I'd like to see him make that sound with the instrument she's playing."
The biggest physical thing to stand out when learning is that you make slightly more tinny sounds on smaller violins, and you don't typically hit a full size violin until you hit puberty.
If I were to guess, his violin does sound better, but the skill would make the biggest difference in the two situations.
Yo! Oistrakh. One of my favourite violinists. I have noticed the following with my 10 year old's violin teacher (who is a really good violinist). To show him a certain technique during her lesson she reaches for her instrument instead of his. Especially for a bit challenging violin part, I guess she can confidently show a technique better on her own familiar instrument.
Historically this is uninteresting, as we have no reason to think that the makers were consciously trying to imitate a particular kind of voice. It's not interesting physics (and the physics of violin acoustics have been done about to death). It's not interesting mathematics or statistics. And it has no implications for violin making.
One common theme is that extremely expensive old violins aren't better than modern, well crafted violins (these new violins are still expensive, but measured in the tens of thousands, not millions).
While this doesn't surprise me, I do wonder if it misses (to some extent) the point. My guess is that a mass produced, relatively inexpensive violin could very well be as "good" as a more expensive, unique one. But one thing we know about artisanal work is that it's expensive because it's unique and can't be produced through mass production, not because it is strictly better.
I like violins, and play them, mainly early jazz, Irish, bluegrass. It's clear to me that different people are looking for different things in a violin, and that you may not get this from a mass produced instrument. It's not that the more expensive one is better in a blind test, it's that it produces a tone that is hard to find in most instruments, and because it's fairly unique, you'll only find it in an older instrument or a hand crafted one.
This article is interesting, in the idea that some violins are altos and some are baritones. This ins't surprising, we know that violins (and other musical instruments) excel in different registers, and that there are often trade offs (volume, tone, brightness, richness).
Part of the problem, for me, is that I just don't get to play very many violins. I don't feel ok about going to a high end violin store and playing their instruments all afternoon.
But personally, I am on the lookout for something. One thing I really like about Irish music is the airs - slower pieces with long, often open notes, that often aren't played with vibrato (sometimes they can't be directly played with vibrato, since there is extensive use of open strings).
I don't want to get into a big debate about whether vibrato "should" be used in Irish airs on fiddle, cause my opinion is go ahead, if you like it. But to me, there's something about the way a note can ring, almost like a bell, that you can achieve when you draw the bow properly across the string at a particular harmonic, but don't add any additional vibrato.
This article has me thinking there's probably an analogy to the human voice here as well. Baritones, Altos, but there's definitely a style of singing (common in cathedral choirs) that relies on a pinpoint "ring" rather than an operatic vibrato.
This article makes me thing there probably are some styles of violin that would excel at producing these notes. Downside, I don't have $10,000+ to spend, and I doubt a high end shop would enjoy me running this experiment on their inventory.
The classical guitar world is batshit insane for a whole different set of reasons, but at least innovation exists, even if it's massively controversial. Luthiers like Smallman and Dammann can make genuine efforts to advance the state-of-the-art without dooming themselves to penury.
Strings have been modernized twice: First with steel, and now with a lot of contemporary strings having synthetic cores, all within the past century.
And then there's the bow. Stradivarius could not have known what one of his fiddles would sound like in its present form under a modern bow.
As a musician who is struggling with weather or not I want to go meet with my former wife today, a wife who owns a $12K violin, let me say:
do it. That's how they sell instruments, and that's what the point of owning that kind of inventory is.
Just go play some. It will teach you a lot.
One luthier told me: "Every bassist starts out wanting a bass that sounds like their old bass." Like any other musical activity, auditioning an instrument requires practice, which can only be done with real instruments. The luthiers know this. You have to do it.
A modern vase in the Ming style can be of comparable or superior quality to a genuine Ming of known provenance, and will of course be much less expensive.
No modern cello will ever bear a wound from Napoleon's spur. I hope most people understand that rarity and history are valuable in and of themselves.
Like anything in the art world, it may be misleading to talk about quality at all. (I know that was part of your point; and I agree with you). These old violins are historical works of art, and they are collectors items based on name recognition and irreplacability. Quality has very little to do with their extremely high prices.
The narrative that these instruments are unequaled is in part a story that adds mystique and credibility to the super high prices. Blind studies have failed to show that Stradivaris and Guarneris sound better to trained ears.
Possibly the biggest irony here is that Stradivarius was doing as much mass production as was possible at the time; he had a violin factory and the violins were made by apprentices, not by Stradivarius himself. The artisanal violins of today are usually made by the luthier.
> I don't have $10,000+ to spend, and I doubt a high end shop would enjoy me running this experiment on their inventory.
It never hurts to ask. When I shop, I don't tell the staff how much money I have, or whether I intend to buy. Chances are if you're interested and ask to play them, they'll let you. Plus if you find the tone you're looking for, you might change your mind about buying.
> Like anything in the art world, it may be misleading to talk about quality at all.
Here's the reality in the humble opinion of a person who understands some art at a sophisticated level and other art not well at all:
Talking about quality is not at all misleading; the idea that quality is just a matter of arbitrary opinion is just false; it's a nice populist notion that people use to comfort themselves when they don't understand something. I used to do it too: 'It's not me; it's the art that's failed.'
There are very real differences in quality. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because something can't be proven quantitatively doesn't mean it doesn't exist (let's start with love and beauty).
If you take that way out, you are cutting yourself off from some of the great insights and achievements of humankind. Instead of comforting yourself, accept there are things that are difficult, even intimidating, for you to understand - that challenge your self-perception as a genius - and either take the challenge of learning them or be realistic and humble enough to accept your ignorance. Having taken the challenge, it has opened up worlds and wonders to my understanding. FWIW, I find it's hard to force myself to grasp the insights at a desired moment; I just have to be open to them, work at it, and one day the light bulb turns on.
I'm also not talking about all art or all kinds of art; we're discussing high priced auction pieces by recognized names versus the quality of items by relatively unknown artists. The problem is that narrative and name recognition trump the discussion of quality; you can't effectively discuss quality because the stories bias the discussion so heavily. We are also talking about price, which further clouds ideas of quality. Price is not proportional to quality in the art world.
The quality of sound of Stradivari violins has been studied, and it has never been demonstrated in controlled conditions that any experts can discern a qualitative difference in Stradivarius violins. You shouldn't assume there is a qualitative difference and go looking for the source of the difference before you can show that the qualitative difference exists.
https://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tel...
Interestingly, the study simultaneously staters that the players couldn't identify the older violins but also generally rated them lower. I'm wondering, was there something different about these violins that they didn't like (indicating an identifiable, if unfavorable, difference), or did they feel the old violins just sorta came up short in a non-descript way?
Playing style and tastes have changed over the years, so that could be a factor.
It doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility to make physical measurements to find out whether these differences are likely to be borne out in audible ways, e.g., by looking for differences in resonances of more than a few dB.
What would surprise me, would be if such studies uncovered no differences, because it would mean that the luthier's art has been refined to an exceptional level, in order to make instruments sound the same.
Now, if it's possible to discern a difference, even without being able to identify the source of the difference, then it becomes a completely different matter, which is, which one sounds better? And that's a subjective matter.
Disclosure: I'm not a violinist, but a double bassist, and in the world of basses, there are profound differences in materials and construction among instruments, so the idea that two fine instruments should sound different is quite plausible.
However, automation generally results in higher quality items with fewer defects. So, hand crafted is more likely a selling point without any actual benefit for the product.
Ummm.... no.
Every piece of wood is different. CNC gets you a "violin shaped object", not a violin. It is the plate tuning and set-up that finalizes the instrument, not the mold shape that you start with.
There are decent factory fiddles, but they tend to be heavy in the wood and dull sounding. A nice workshop instrument is much more of a joy to play.
("bench built" == master luthier, "workshop" == one of the aprentices got his fiddle approved by the master, "factory fiddle" == mostly automated, "VSO" == violin shaped object)
There are a lot of good luthiers working today. My daughter has now (and her previous fiddle was) a Ming Zhang Zhou workshop instrument. Very nice, under $3k budget. Huge difference between that and a CNC special.
Don't get me started on bows.... once I was waiting for an adjustment to my instrument, and was just going through the bow showroom trying stuff. I picked up one that amazed me! I felt like it played itself! Made the instrument come alive with power! I glanced at the price tag and realized I had gotten into the $5K and up drawer by accident....
However, I am saying workshop with apprentices is mass production because they involve standardized products and a two or more step assembly line. Otherwise the Aprentice would be working without supervision or quality inspection.
One thought that comes to mind: ask them if they're ok with you writing an article on your results, and crediting the shop. Then you're giving something back to them. They might even tell you more, if they know you're interested in certain qualities or situations.
The high end violins people are talking about are made pretty much the same way as they've been made for centuries. The Chinese have factories turning out student instruments of very solid quality, but that's not what people are talking about when they compare with Guarnaris or Stradivarii.
> It's not that the more expensive one is better in a blind test, it's that it produces a tone that is hard to find in most instruments, and because it's fairly unique, you'll only find it in an older instrument or a hand crafted one.
Not really. While there are characteristic overtone series for a given instrument, or even a given maker or school of makers, that is a question of preference. There are real qualities that you're after. First, versatility. What makes a violin a student instrument is that its sound is quite fixed. It's like playing in a box. That's handy when you're trying to get control of your technique, but once you have that, an instrument that will alter its timbre depending on how you play it becomes desirable. Second, uniformity. Does the violin ring well and consistently over its range? Are there places where you have to baby it to avoid having one note ring out harshly over the rest? Finally, response. How smoothly and quickly does the violin change pitch or timbre? Do you have to stop the sound and restart it to get it to drop an octave on one string, or will it go as soon as you move your finger?
> One thing I really like about Irish music is the airs - slower pieces with long, often open notes, that often aren't played with vibrato (sometimes they can't be directly played with vibrato, since there is extensive use of open strings). I don't want to get into a big debate about whether vibrato "should" be used in Irish airs on fiddle, cause my opinion is go ahead, if you like it. But to me, there's something about the way a note can ring, almost like a bell, that you can achieve when you draw the bow properly across the string at a particular harmonic, but don't add any additional vibrato.
You can always replace the open string with a fingered note on the next string down (aside from open G). But yes, most of this music wasn't intended for the continuous vibrato that became popular among classical violinists in the 20th century. Irish and Scottish folk music is descended from Baroque dance music, and its use of tone and vibrato is very close to what musicological evidence shows Baroque musicians to have used. There's a variation called finger vibrato where increase and decrease the pressure on the string instead of moving the hand to produce a slight vibration. Typically it is used as a decoration as a long note extends. That's what Geminiani (who is mentioned in the article) describes as vibrato, and it was classified as an ornament like a mordent or a trill.
But anything you think you hear from making this comparison is fooling yourself. What you're hearing is the player. Heifitz famously got tired of people raving about the tone of the Stradivarius he played and played a concert on a student instrument.