Personal View site logo
Stradivarius violins : Horrible Truth
  • 45 Replies sorted by
  • neokooneokoo

    @flaschus I'd bet in that situation a well made non-Stradivarius will sound equally magical, as long as no-one knows nor cares about the brand of the violin, or if everyone including the player believes it's a Strad ;)

    I agree though about art being (in part) beyond exact scientific definition.

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    I could have sworn that I encountered a very similar test in my research online last year.

    Anyway, "preference" is one thing and "discernable difference" is another. In a similar (if not identical) test people were quite frequently able to discern a difference. Now, as to whether they preferred one vs. another, that's partially a matter of personal aesthetics.

    But different violins certainly do have different sounds and it's a lot of fun when you can audition the character of some of them blind at a music store. :)

  • jpbturbojpbturbo

    Just to provide a point of comparison, let's say I took my 1930s Martin guitar and put good quality, laser corrected nylon strings on it. And then compared it to a high end classical guitar. Well, the Martin would sound OK, but it would lose every time because of the one simple change--putting the wrong strings on it. It was not built for nylon strings, and, in fact, there were no Nylon strings when the framer--the designer--hand built that guitar. So the idea of Nylon strings did not exist as a sound that any person had ever heard, at that time.

    My 16 year old Taylor sounds and plays "better" than my uncles early 60's martin that used to be my dad's guitar.

    If it came down to it I would be OK with owning the Martin instead of my Taylor because of the family history but I would really rather be playing my Taylor.

  • DrDaveDrDave

    @jpbturbo You could take your 16 year old Taylor and put nylon strings on it and it would sound worse than any Martin with the right strings. The point is that the Strad has been drastically altered, fitted with different strings, and had a weight clamped to the soundboard. The modern copy is designed for the weight, the bass bar, the neck angle, and especially the modern strings. That's why it often sounds better. Of course, as a musician, you get to play what you want, within the limits of the budget. If you are a violinist, you play the Strad--if you can--simply because of the advertising, and anyone who chooses not to will lose out to the career-minded person every time. That's one way the big corporations control the recording industry.

  • jpbturbojpbturbo

    @DrDave

    I understood what you were saying the first time you said it.

    I was more addressing the idea that an instruments known provenance has an impact on our attraction to it if not an impact on the sound.

    My Taylor gets medium gauge D'addarios (13-56) which are what it left the factory with back in 98. After some brief experimentation I decided that other gauges just didn't sound right. I'm sure that nylon strings would sound terrible.

  • soundgh2soundgh2

    My in law famously left his on a train after a few Bitters @-0 - the strad has the 1958 Les Paul syndrome - we have 2 sunbursts in the studio at 180k a piece and the "pirated" copy with the same wood that is used and played every time cost 6k same wood same PAF's - just turn it up and whatever is best - Gibson hate the copys , and are desperately trying to capture the luthiers "emulating" them, as they are better - really do have better tone than my chums ridiculous investments lol Some nutty Japanese guy I'm sure will buy them to pop them in a safe.

  • tetakpataktetakpatak

    If you are comparing stuff - blind tests are only real options

    +1 @VK if the audience would know when are they listening the Strad, 99% would swear it is so clearly better than any other violin. When they don't know, the difference between top-class modern instrument and top-class old instrument isn't clearly noticable at all.

    However, there is also a historical value and myth that makes those great old instruments so expensive....and huge interest, of course. Besides, it is so much easier to sell many concert tickets and CDs when the artist uses an instrument that costs few million $

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @tetakpatak

    I can make things look even worse.

    Most of usual people won't be able to tell difference between cubic zirconia (with proper cut) and diamonds. Yet price difference is huge. Even for gemologist methods of detection are mostly focused on density and thermal properties :-)

  • DrDaveDrDave

    I think if you are going to do a a "scientific" test, you need to make some basic definitions--and that means showing why the Strad being tested is somehow representative of Stradivarius work. They didn't do that, so it's an apples vs oranges comparison. A more interesting comparison would be the Steiner vs Strad. In the baroque, the Steiner was considered superior. There is an unaltered one at the Shrine. http://orgs.usd.edu/nmm/Violins/Before1800/Stainerviolin.html If you look at the photos, you will see the original style neck, which is parallel, not angled. Crucial to the sound, and the first thing that was ripped off the Strads before remodelling.

  • karlkarl

    If you want to test your abilities on a similar issue, try this online quiz on telling toddler paintings from famous artists paintings. (Which is probably still much easier than telling one kind of violin from another. But the price difference is also much much higher both in factor and absolute numbers.)

  • IrmantaIrmanta

    @ Vitaliy

    "...love trust and opinions lead to nowhere..."

    I Agree with the statement!

    LOVE TRUST AND OPINION about false Gods can be disastrous and absolutely destructive!

    Your Love and Trust for science and "scientific" will definatly lead you in wrong conclusions. Your Opinion that Science can decode, explain and prove the REAL TRUTH about Art (or Life for that matter:) and both fruitless and wrong. We are where we are as a civilisation (very low right now) cause we try to define Life and World solely on scinetific premise. You see, Science has a very bad attitude when it comes to something that can not explain. And than pronounces it as a Heressy, Sacralidge, Supestition ....

    It would be more eficient if Science admitts that Life or Art are "SUPRA-scientific" phenomenas and scinece can be very very impotent in certain areas...

    Yes, Merchants and Diamond traders have difficulties to determine what is a real and what is a fake diamond. Not so ih you are a alternative medicine Healer, Guru, Bioenergy Weirdo or certain animals for that matter...they can show you in a split of second what is a real Diamond because fake one simply doesn't work in their respective field! They can "smell" it!

    When Stradivarius, Amati, Guerninni buit their isntruments, I dont think they anticipated that they will be played where multi hundred people audiences breathe, in Halls lit by electric lights, in the enviroment polluted by CO2 fumes, influenced by numerous radio waves, cell phone towers, Wi-Fi broadcasting in the buildings made and filled by armored concrete and fiber wool and ultimately, for people who have more trust in brute Scinece then in untouched energy of Divine Muses...so no wonder that new instruments might appear sounding better then the old "Masters"....but I dont think they are!

    Or maybe you would like to argue on scientific basis that electro-magnetic-energy-and other things that I listed don't influence the performance and properties of musical instrument today?:)

    I would rather say that these blind tests are conducted by "empty" researchers with "deaf" peopleloids :)

  • DrDaveDrDave

    @Irmanta I agree with some of this, but Concrete: Invented by the Romans, used for aqueducts. Large Audiences: Musicians in the baroque played indoors and outdoors, often in freezing cold churches that held thousands of people. Large audiences were normal for the many important calendar days. Air pollution: coal, wood and candles produced toxic smoke, rooms were heated with poorly vented fireplaces, which often ran all day for cooking as well.

    "In ancient Rome, the statesman Seneca complained about "the stink, soot and heavy air" in the city. In 1257, when Henry III's wife visited Nottingham, she found the stench of smoke from coal burning so intolerable that she left for fear of her life, and in 1285 London's air was so polluted that Edward I established the world's first air pollution commission. " (Source: Guardian)

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Not so ih you are a alternative medicine Healer, Guru, Bioenergy Weirdo or certain animals for that matter...they can show you in a split of second what is a real Diamond because fake one simply doesn't work in their respective field!

    LOL

    Your Opinion that Science can decode, explain and prove the REAL TRUTH about Art (or Life for that matter:) and both fruitless and wrong. We are where we are as a civilisation (very low right now) cause we try to define Life and World solely on scinetific premise. You see, Science has a very bad attitude when it comes to something that can not explain.

    Science goal is to explain things that can't be explained for now. :-) And for me it seems like it works very good.

    Unfortunately dumb hamsters still pay Gurus and Bioenergy Weirdos :-) it is nature it its best, natural selection. :-)

  • IrmantaIrmanta

    Tell that to people to whom Science said that they will die in 6 months, yet after visiting "A Healer" (that you make fun of ) they are still very well healthy and alive many years after...number of such crowd is enough that science should admitt at least be a bit less arrogant about itself, but I guess that for nonbelievers no kind of Miracle can help :)

    Roman concrete was not buit with 1 inch thich steel rods inside, furniture was not stainless,, there was no plastic seats and polymeric fumes, CO2 from coal or wood is different that from exxons rafined oils etc etc etc...Its not me saying it, but Science :)

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    Tell that to people to whom Science said that they will die in 6 months, yet after visiting "A Healer" (that you make fun of ) they are still very well healthy and alive many years after...number of such crowd is enough that science should admitt at least be a bit less arrogant about itself,

    First, quite big number of people live long time after some doctor told that they will die :-) Without healers.

    Second, last time I checked about 100x more people died doing reverse thing, I mean going to healers.

    Third, doctors are individual guys, some are good, some are bad, it has nothing to do with science and voodoo. healers are same. Some use much more science and knowledge compared to some doctors :-)

    Roman concrete was not buit with 1 inch thich steel rods inside, furniture was not stainless,,

    And?

  • spacewigspacewig

    @Irmanta Preach on, brother, I'm with you on this. The last 4 people I witnessed having a heart-attack I took away their cell phones and refused to call the ambulance. Instead we all held hands and recited some magical lines from some book written by the world's best selling supra-scientific writer, J.K.Rowllings. Unfortunately those 4 heart attack victims died but that's probably because science brainwashed them into believing that they were supposed to lie on the floor clutching their chests breathlessly instead of dancing with us to heal themselves. And the louder we sang to build up the positive energy, the more annoyed those ingrates looked. No wonder they didn't make it.

    I can't wait for my alternative medicine healer guru to update his new website with the cure for my anus cancer. Best part is he now accepts PayPal so I don't have to wait for FedEx to deliver my payments to get my spells :) Fuck these science Nazis.

  • DrDaveDrDave

    @Irmanta Romans used iron tie bars as tensile reinforcing elements to restrain the thrust on the innermost or outermost arches or vaults (Lynne Lancaster, Concrete Vaulted Construction in Imperial Rome). The fact is, concrete has been around for thousands of years. Roman concrete lasts substantially longer than modern concrete--the formula was lost in the early middle ages. No one is really sure why theirs was better.

  • jpbturbojpbturbo

    Volcanic ash.

  • brianlbrianl

    We are mere puppets. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/17/david-ickes-theory-of-the-reptilian-human-hybrid-apocalypse/

  • DrDaveDrDave

    @jpbturbo Yup, the secret ingredient. Don't tell anyone.

    @karl I took the toddler test and flunked it. Ouch.

Add a Comment