What makes a Stradivarius so good?

Cafe Society
81

I read that and thought, “dude, have you ever used any tool?” I’m not a musician, but I use lots other types of tools, and it’s blindingly obvious to me that responsiveness is an important quality.
But… it seems that was one of the items tested for.

So I have a different question. Was there a time in living memory when strads (and similar instruments from the same general time and place) were objectively the best violins one could get? Because it’s true for a lot of high-end stuff that until recently, some ancient craftsmen made better stuff than what could obtained new. And that just in the last decade or two, modern materials and manufacturing techniques have surpassed craftsmanship from before the industrial revolution. So I wonder if that’s the story with strads, and how their reputation was built.

82

Responsiveness: yes, it is important, and yes it was included; all points to the fact that a test like that can reveal…that the statement Strads are the Best is marketing hype and not some data-based statement of fact. Cool.

To my knowledge, based on reading a few books about the history of Strads - I believe Cremonese instruments gained a reputation for excellence, but then that reputation was burnished by auction houses in England, mostly WE Hill.

83

Suppose you were to compare single notes (from each string) of a Stradivarius against a modern violin-would that yield any significant differences?

84

I’ve been lurking away at this thread, because I’ve played violin, and can still make one sound not quite like a bag of cats. So, while I don’t know what I’m talking about in any depth, I’m in its neighborhood.

Strads and their cousins were the standard as tools around 1900, because their reputation was solidly established. Due to this reputation, most violin makers began to make their violins as some sort of a Stradivarius copy. I played a Roth for a few years. Roth pretty much only makes copies of two different Strads at different price levels. Some of them were amazing, some were merely OK violins, and the price level doesn’t really tell you much about which was which. They’re hand made violins, out of variable materials. The more experienced luthiers build the more expensive violins, but they built violins after lunch on Friday, and the inexperienced guys sometimes hit it right. My Roth was a cheaper 70’s model, I bought and sold it for $350 during the 80’s, but it is that magical one that I let get away. I’ve played some budget and nicer violins since then, but that one sang. I think I probably placed at least 2 or 3 seats higher in orchestra because that instrument worked so well (yep, response even works when you suck).

The point to that is, the sound of a Stradivarius is kind of built in to what we expect a violin to sound like, but he himself was only partly sure what made that sound. Not all of his instruments are equal, and we’ve been trying to figure out what makes the special ones special for more than 100 years. Companies like Roth could get very close, and possibly surpass the original sometimes, through emulation and experimentation before the 1970’s (indeed, the most valued ones are pre-WWII). The examination of the original instruments has continued in earnest since the 1970’s, and our understanding of the materials involved has increased by leaps and bounds. If we couldn’t at least come close to a Strad* with current knowledge, processes, volume of attempts and the amount of effort devoted to examining them, we’d be pretty poor monkeys.

So, I do think that a lot of what makes a Stradivarius so good is partly because they are so damn old. Any stringed instrument that doesn’t have self-destroying string tension that has been maintained and loved for that long is going to have some special qualities, even if it’s not one of the greats of the marque. Do I think you should go out of your way to play or listen to the actual thing at this point? Nah, you should base it on the performer, if you’re just listening. If you’re playing, and footing the bill for the instrument (it seems that most people who play a Strad in a performance don’t actually own them), I’d say limit yourself to the best violin you can find for less than $1500. In the end, like the mighty Chet and Jascha explained, it’s the person playing the instrument that makes it good. Until then, it’s a pretty box. If Yehudi Menuhin was (alive and) bowing a banjo, I’d find a reason to show up.
*Or the moving target that is a PAF (or any 50’s pickup, it’s not like quality control was their watchword ;))

85

So to summarise:

  • on point one we agree and always have

  • on point two we agree that there is no evidence for Strads being “Best”. As to “are acoustic tests important and definitive”, well this whole topic is not “important”, and “definitive” is a very big word (definitive of what?). But for someone who seems quite well disposed towards the proposition that Strads aren’t “Best” you seem strangely determined to be derisory about tests that show that when people don’t know they’re listening to a Strad, they don’t think they sound “Best”.

  • on points three and four (which are the same thing), you have no evidence and what evidence there is, is against you (see D18’s helpful post above, thanks D18). Lack of evidence equals “mystical” as far as I’m concerned.

86

So, were strads the best in 1900? Any time since then?

87

On this point, you haven’t demonstrated or spoken to whether you actually play an instrument - doesn’t seem like your concerns matter in this application, given that you have no experience with it.

88

Princhester, I took Wordman’s statement "Like all great instruments, they have superior responsiveness’ to mean compared to inferior instruments, rather than compared to modern instruments. I.e., it’s an attribute that contributes to superiority, no matter what time period of manufacture we are talking about. That what you meant Wordman?

With respect to the question about was there a time when Strads were superior to contemporaneous instruments - without an experiment, we won’t know. Indirect evidence is that during the 19th century, Strads were significantly remodelled to suit contemporaneous playing styles. So logically, people obviously thought they were good enough that they would prefer to adapt them over getting a brand new violin. On the other hand, there were oodles of violins made in the 18th and 19th centuries that are still played and loved today. I’m going to guess no.

Scabpicker, I’m curious about your choice of 1900. I did a quick google and it looks like the practice of copying Strads started earlier - in the mid 19th century. But that’s a good point about the Strads defining what we think a great violin should sound like. Then again - there certainly venerated makers who were Stradivairi’s contemporary.

Ralph, I’d guess that just playing single notes would tend to lessen any differences between any two instruments and make it harder to tell a difference. (I’m assuming you mean just playing a sustained note that last several seconds.) Or did you mean can acoustical analysis of sustained notes show a difference? I don’t know.

89

Or has he ever driven different types of car? An MR2 is far more responsive than, say, a Ford Focus. You get feedback (from lack of a better term) from the MR2 than you do from a Focus. You can feel the tires, the vibration in the wheel, etc.

It’s not all “woo” to have a “responsive” machine. Take a decent quality hammer and whack a few nails into a board. Then wrap the handle in about an inch, inch-and-a-half of plastic-wrap and use an oven mitt. Tell me there’s no difference in your ability to discern how hard to hit the nail, how to adjust the hammer, etc.

90

Yup any tool.

Heck, I used to whittle. I made wooden chains, spoons, balls-in-cages, little animals, funny people… you’d think all knives are basically the same modulo sharpness, but they aren’t. You can feel how the wood is cutting better with some than with others. Probably something about the stiffness and springiness of the steel, or how well the blade is attached to the handle. I dunno, but it matters. It matters with pretty much every tool I’ve ever used.

91

Fenris and puzzlegal - your examples make sense. I suspect that Princhester was pointing at the post I did after Bumbershoot asked me to explain responsiveness a bit more. I guess I used flowery language :wink: - sorry.

Bottom line, responsiveness is key, and D18, yes, you summarize the point I have been trying to make. I keyed on “listening tests” in general because they rarely speak to responsiveness. But to your point, the tests in question (I can’t bare to think of them as “PNAS” tests because I then try to say PNAS out loud and start giggling) do include responsiveness as a variable.

But - because this is still a test of subjective impressions, the best even those tests can accomplish is to debunk a statement of marketing hype and show that Strad’s fit into a Tippy-Top category even taking responsiveness into account.

In terms of questions about “were Strads ever the best?” - I read a book called Stradivari’s Genius: http://www.amazon.com/Stradivaris-Genius-Centuries-Enduring-Perfection/dp/0375760857/ref=pd_cp_14_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=018Q0S56D4NWT8JT71Q2

It basically provides a bio of Antonio Stradivari, a bit about his work and some “biographies” about some of his more famous instruments. It serves to fan the flames of Strad hype. But between reading it and a few other similar books, the sense that I get is that a UK auction house, WE Hill & Sons, marketed Strad’s hard in Victorian England and across Europe. So: you know how when we say “Einstein” it still means “genius”? That is what happened with Strads - the word Stradivarius was branded by that auction house and perhaps some other folks who stood to make money as the BEST. It got to the point that Sears in their famous catalogues sold “Stradivarius” marked violins for anywhere from a few bucks to maybe $20 which was a lot at the turn of the 1900’s. I know this because a friend from work brought one in to ask if it was real and I got her to take it to the guy who does Antiques Roadshow appraisals - Fred Oster out of Philly - he was the one who explained this to us and pointed out all the ways that this friend’s “Strad” was made in Eastern Europe in the late 1890’s not in Italy in the early 1700’s…

Anyway, the point is that by 1900 “Stradivarius” was so synonymous in the public’s mind with “best ever violin” that Sears copped the name and folks started doing tests to accept/reject the premise that Strads are the best ever. But it has always been hype, Strads have always simply been amongst the best, and these tests remain silly or, at best, only capable of saying “no, not the bestest best - other great violins test just as well…”

92

Hah! I never noticed that! Any time I’ve heard people refer to the journal, they always spell out the letters as opposed to making it a word. I’ll never look at that publication the same way again!

Carry on!

93

Well, I picked 1900 because that’s around when Roth got started, who’s the mfr. I’m best acquainted with (who also copied other Cremonese makers). The habit of copying them did probably start in the 19th century, but by 1900, the craze was in full swing.
(On preview: Wow, bummer of an acronym, Earl. :slight_smile: )

94

I haven’t replied because I don’t respond to arguments from authority except with derision. Indeed, it speaks (nay shouts) volumes that seemingly your only argument on this point is from authority.

The views of authority about highly subjective matters is proven time and time again to be completely unreliable. A major study of wine tasting judges recently found they were all over the place in their judgement of the same wines from one time to the next. Yet they will tell you they can objectively and consistently judge wine. Parents are often absolutely sure they know the “well known” effects of sugar or red cordial on their children. Try telling them they are wrong and the offense will be red hot and the rejection of your position absolute (just ask me about my conversations with my wife and other experienced parents). Yet it turns out in study after study that the whole thing about children’s wild behaviour after being fed sugar exists only in parents’ imagination.

You saying “unless you play an instrument you just can’t know” is frankly a way of saying “I’ve got nuthin’ and I’m probably wrong”.

Really, as when we have had this debate before a large part of the problem is that I’m just talking about one narrow point, ie the OP. And you keep “arguing with me” as if I’m making some wider point that I’ve never disagreed about.

**Fenris **you need to read my comments more carefully. Don’t take any notice of what **Wordman **assumes; there is little evidence from his posts that he reads mine with any real intent to understand.

I said explicitly above that responsiveness exists. I don’t doubt for a moment that better instruments allow better playing. What I have actually said about responsiveness is that:

1/ there is evidence that Strads don’t sound better than high end modern instruments to listeners. So to the extent that the important end product of a musical instrument is the subjective experience of those who hear them, there is evidence that Strads have no better responsiveness - in any way that is important - than high end modern instruments. It’s like (to use your example) fitting to a racing car some new gas pedal that undoubtedly gives the driver more “feel” but then discovering that its lap times are exactly the same or worse than before.

2/ there is evidence (per D18’s link) that Strads “playability” (which as I understand it is roughly “responsiveness”) is in blind tests worse than high end modern instruments

3/ the idea that Strads somehow through their mystical responsiveness somehow imbue players with enduring abilities that show up when they play other instruments seems like woo to me, and is untested.

95

I should add:

You may be right but as usual with **Wordman **it’s hard to tell. If that’s his point he’s arguing with no one.

96

Jeezus, Princhester, on a related topic, I think blind taste tests have shown decaf to be just as good as regular!:wink:

97

*&%$ taste! I need caffeine.

98

Because it makes you more responsive? :wink:

(Sorry, couldn’t resist that one)

99

Actually it’s a good demonstration of the principle: I feel like it makes me more responsive and active but whether I actually achieve anything more is a very moot point.

100

What about age? the wood used to make some of these Strads is now over 300 years old. Wood deteriorates with time-is this a factor in the great sounds these violins emit?