So there’s a Stradivarius going up for auction that might set a new record. Yesterday on All Things Considered they interviewed a violinist who owns one. He spoke about how great they are, and what makes them so prized, but one thing he said is that they are harder to play:
BELL: A Strad, you have to coax out - you could easily make a nasty sound or a crunchy sound, or if you don’t move your bow at exactly the right speed, it can whistle or squeak or (laughter) - you know, so you really have to know - get to know the instrument and know how to use it.
Now, I can’t carry a tune in a bucket, much less play an instrument. But it seems to me that what he’s describing would be a function of the strings, not the violin itself. I understand how the shape, wood, construction, etc could impact the sound. No doubt there. But ultimately wouldn’t any such screech or squeak come from the strings, which presumably are not original to the violin?
Here’s an adjacent question: can a trained ear recognized a performance on a Stradivarius vs. a just-acceptable violin? Or is it all about the Strad’s cachet – like buying a Gucci purse or a Louis Vuitton jacket?
(My wife is a luthier, so I’ve heard/discussed quite a bit about these and similar tests, tho I remain a mediocre upright bass player.)
There are so many challenges to conducting such tests. For one thing, the owners of Strads/Guarneris/etc are generally unwilling to allow testers to “modify” their instruments to make them more comparable to the modern instruments.
Having said that, you have to distinguish between the instrument and its setup. I guarantee than no Strad being played today has period appropriate strings, and I doubt any have the original bridge, tailpiece, etc. Many have had their overstand adjusted to reflect modern tastes.
Anything that does not permanently alter the basic “box,” finish, and scroll is pretty much fair game. Many old Strads almost get to the level of George Washington’s hatchet.
If you want a thorough discussion of what exact combination of factors contribute to a violin’s sound and playability, there are countless such discussions to be found on stringed instrument forums. But I have always heard that Strads (at least in general) are challenging to play.
Final point - I’m not even sure how many listeners could tell the difference between instruments that pro players claim to discern.
Sort of related. I saw a performance once of a guy with an 18th Century cello. It was super cool because he knew the provenance and exactly where and when it was made. He used the old animal gut strings and said that he almost had to relearn how to play because it was very difficult. It was more finicky to set up and get right. He played a piece from that era and time and noted that that instrument almost certainly played that piece when it was debuted.
If I am reading that article correctly, the blind-folded musicians played the instruments themselves:
If these professional musicians, playing the different violins couldn’t pick out the old vs new, that makes me think the old can’t be that much more difficult to play or they’d have bit of info to inform their decisions.
I would suspect - old or new - it might be akin to driving a fine sports car. It can take SOME more skill and attention to even drive it safely, and considerable ability to drive it to its maximum capabilities.
Or, another example - pro golfers are notoriously picky about their gear. They claim they can try 10-20 or more ostensibly identical putters or drivers, and only 1 will do what they want. The vast majority of average to decent golfers could not tell the difference among them. Moreover, the clubs the pros use require much more precision and consistency than most duffers are capable of. Most average to good golfers are better served by playing more “forgiving” clubs than the pros.
Similarly, even very good fiddlers are not able to play with the precision and perfect technique as the very best.
Here is Ray Chen, who normally plays a Strad, doing a comparison between a Strad and a $69 violin off Amazon. It’s not in any way a blind test, but the difference in sound is pretty discernable. The cheap violin stills sounds pretty good, when played by such a good musician. https://youtu.be/Bd40IQaLAzE?t=137
The quote is mostly about the nature of the catch release behaviour of the bow on the string. This is pretty complicated because there are vibrations travelling in the bow, and vibration of the violin itself couples to the process as well.
Playing the most basic bowed string requires a level of skill to lock the vibrating system into the desired mode. Pressure, speed, placement on the string, the manner in which the note is started and thence sustained are all part of the skill set. If the sustained catch release isn’t set up you get cats in pain levels of noise.
Violinists have bows that suite their specific skills and needs. The bow is probably a bigger influence than the instrument.
Any individual violin is huge mess of vibrational modes which may vary significantly from instrument to instrument. The coupling of the string into the instrument (the admittance if you use an engineering viewpoint) affects the way the string vibrates. The whole point is to transmit as much of the energy being driven into the string by the bow into the body. The exact way the body behaves will have some influence on the dynamics of the catch release of bow dynamics on the string. A lively responsive violin will play differently to a more sedate and even violin, and demand more focused skill to keep under control. Which is partly why different violins may be more suited to orchestral playing than versus soloist use.
Players who use old high end instruments will often talk of how they need to understand their instrument.
This is partly why blind tests to prove the value or not of old instruments is somewhat flawed. By the same token, the mystique surrounding these instruments is IMHO way overblown. Some of it is making a virtue of a flaw. Not all Stradivarius violins are fabulous. But they all attract ridiculous valuations and are a badge of excellence for those musicians that play them. They are good enough to warrant a strad, so even if the instrument is not actually as good as it’s press, it still gets played. I can think of a couple of musicians who have turned to modern instruments from current makers in preference to Stradivarius or Guadagnini. They didn’t own the old instruments, few do, but had access to them via patrons or their position. The myth that modern makers can’t match the old masters is some promulgated by those with an interest in keeping the prices of the old instruments high.
No doubt very old instruments will have aged. Wood is not exactly a material you would choose for longevity. The idea that aging always makes things better is not really supported. But it does make things different.
The term of art for cellists is “dying cow”. But it’s the same idea.
I’m not a violinist but I played the cello for a few years when I was young, and I cannot stress this enough.
There’s a half-joke that, when attending a concert, amateurs watch the fretboard hand (so many fast notes all over the place!) and professionals watch the bow hand. Now, this is only partly true, but most people don’t realize how difficult it is to get the bowing movement correct and how absolutely crucial it is in producing a beautiful tone.