Wait – are you saying that if it’s scientifically proven that Stradivariuses don’t deserve their reputation, then science must be wrong?
I am not sure you are joking or not. I am saying that art and perception of art are outside the realm of science.
There was a fascinating and related article in the NYTimes Magazine this weekend about musicians and their relationship with their noteworthy instruments. It focused on a cellist and his relationship with his Stradivarius through the end of his life. This was a world-renowned, celebrated cellist - clearly, to him, this instrument helped him connect with his art.
Now - if he or someone were to say “this proves that Strad’s are the Bestest!” would they be right? Of course not. But do some truly world-class musicians develop relationships with historic instruments? Sure.
I fall pretty strongly on the “myth” side of this discussion, but:
I think that an instrument can have an effect on a player that improves the output. Some of the reasons for that effect are intangible. One of the intangible (maybe even irrational) reasons is the fact that it is a Strad or a pre-war Martin D-45 or whatever. This might be thought of as the “makes you want to play” factor of the instrument. Only some of that quality is intrinsic, some of it comes from the aura or the reputation of the make, model, year.
Imagine a test in which a world-class violinist plays a short piece familiar to expert judges. He play it three times, all on instruments he has never played before: one is a Strad and he doesn’t know it, one is a world-class new one and he doesn’t know it, and another is a different Strad, but he knows this one is a Strad. The judges are all in the dark about the instruments. I have no trouble believing that for some players, the third test would sound noticeably better to the expert judges than the other two. I also have no trouble stating that the reasons for this are irrational and that the violin had nothing physical to do with it.
Exactly!
On another note, I was checking out that book on"Stradivarius’ Genius". I totally want to read the book because it sounds fun and interesting. But I read this opening sentence of the review quoted from Publisher’s Weekly:
If that is what you guys are thumbing your noses at, well, yeah - that’s crap. Utter crap. But that is a no-nothing twit trying to act like he/she knows what they are talking about. Snark away at goofballs like that, as far as I am concerned.
I am much more inclined to point to **Crotalus’ **experiment - as artists, musicians often have no clue what “does a number on their head” and inspires them to new levels of creativity. For some, the knowledge that they are playing a vintage, historically important instrument may be part of their equation…and that’s fine. Just like it is fine if they like modern instruments with certain specific features, or prefer a cheap-ass instrument because they have to fight it (like the guitarist Jack White and his POS 60’s Airline guitars made out of res-O-plast…)
Yes it is and yes that’s what we’ve been thumbing our noses at for pages. So you are in furious agreement with us. Did you just need to argue with someone about something 
But if you think that “Utter crap” was not (and is not) seriously believed by many serious people you are wrong. There have been extensive studies into what (supposedly) made Strads physically and unreplicably “awesome” instruments, without actually checking whether they were unreplicable.
Nah - I am frustrated at the concept of trying to quantify art.
If someone says “Strads can’t be replicated” they are missing it. If someone says “anyone who thinks Strads are special and modern builds can’t be of similar quality” are missing it. But if you, as a musician, know what gets you to create your best art, and, for you, it turns out to be having access to a Strad, well, hey, more power to you if you can make it work.
I have been through years of guitar searches trying to figure out what qualities worked best for me and kept me playing and inspired. It was so clear to me that: a) the overall qualities that mattered were totally idiosyncratic to me, not anything universal; and b) they *really *mattered - again, to me. As I have inched closer and closer to instruments that have the right combination of design, materials, build quality, age/history, etc., I have gotten that much more pleasure and inspiration from my playing. But I would never state that the choices I ended up with are “better” vs. anyone else’s choices.
Perhaps you should go find a thread where this is happening, then. Rather than attempting to make this into a thread about what you are frustrated about. Because at this point, your determination not to understand that what you want to discuss isn’t what is being discussed here is beginning to seem wilful.
Hey! Airlines weren’t that bad! I started out on an Airline… (remembering) Okay, they were that bad. But if you do some hardware mods, as I assume White has done, and use decent strings you can end up with a guitar that is both funky (POS brand) and chic (not that awful to play).
Who made you Lord of the Thread? The point of the thread, at some level, is Do Strads Matter? and the answer is Yes, but can’t be found in a double-blind listening/playing test. It’s found in the mind and mindset of the artist.
Fine, you go on arguing with nobody then.